[101549] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Greg VILLAIN)
Thu Jan 10 06:42:38 2008
From: Greg VILLAIN <nanog@grrrrreg.net>
To: nanog list <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <478528D5.1060009@ai.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:37:42 +0100
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Jan 9, 2008, at 9:04 PM, Deepak Jain wrote:
> =
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/TenFold-Jump-In-Encrypted-BitTorrent-Tr=
affic-89260
> =
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Comcast-Traffic-Shaping-Impacts-Gnutell=
a-Lotus-Notes-88673
> =
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Net-Neutrality-iOverblowni-7322=
5
>
> If I am mistakenly being duped by some crazy fascists, please let me =20=
> know.
>
> However, my question is simply.. for ISPs promising broadband =20
> service. Isn't it simpler to just announce a bandwidth quota/cap =20
> that your "good" users won't hit and your bad ones will? This =20
> chasing of the lump under-the-rug (slowing encrypted traffic, then =20
> VPN traffic and so on...) seems like the exact opposite of progress =20=
> to me (by progressively nastier filters, impeding the traffic your =20
> network was built to move, etc).
>
> Especially when there is no real reason this P2P traffic can't =20
> masquerade as something really interesting... like Email or Web =20
> (https, hello!) or SSH or gamer traffic. I personally expect a day =20
> when there is a torrent "encryption" module that converts everything =20=
> to look like a plain-text email conversation or IRC or whatever.
>
> When you start slowing encrypted or VPN traffic, you start setting =20
> yourself up to interfere with all of the bread&butter applications =20
> (business, telecommuters, what have you).
>
> I remember Bill Norton's peering forum regarding P2P traffic and how =20=
> the majority of it is between cable and other broadband providers... =20=
> Operationally, why not just lash a few additional 10GE cross-=20
> connects and let these *paying customers* communicate as they will?
>
> All of these "traffic shaping" and "traffic prioritization" =20
> techniques seem a bit like the providers that pushed for ubiquitous =20=
> broadband because they liked the margins don't want to deal with a =20
> world where those users have figured out ways to use these amazing =20
> networks to do things... whatever they are. If they want to develop =20=
> incremental revenue, they should do it by making clear what their =20
> caps/usage profiles are and moving ahead... or at least =20
> transparently share what shaping they are doing and when.
>
> I don't see how Operators could possibly debug connection/throughput =20=
> problems when increasingly draconian methods are used to manage =20
> traffic flows with seemingly random behaviors. This seems a lot like =20=
> the evil-transparent caching we were concerned about years ago.
>
> So, to keep this from turning into a holy war, or a non-operational =20=
> policy debate, and assuming you agree that providers of consumer =20
> connectivity shouldn't employee transparent traffic shaping because =20=
> it screws the savvy customers and business customers. ;)
>
> What can be done operationally?
>
> For legitimate applications:
>
> Encouraging "encryption" of more protocols is an interesting way to =20=
> discourage this kind of shaping.
>
> Using IPv6 based IPs instead of ports would also help by obfuscating =20=
> protocol and behavior. Even IP rotation through /64s (cough 1 IP per =20=
> half-connection anyone).
>
> For illegitimate applications:
>
> Port knocking and pre-determined stream hopping (send 50Kbytes on =20
> this port/ip pairing then jump to the next, etc, etc)
>
> My caffeine hasn't hit, so I can't think of anything else. Is this =20
> something the market will address by itself?
>
> DJ
Hi all, 1st post for me here, but I just couldn't help it.
We've been noticing this for quite a couple years in France now. (same =20=
time Cisco buying PCUBE, anyone remember ?).
What happened is that someday, some major ISP here decided customer =20
were to be offered 24Mb/s DSL DOWN, unlimited, plus TV, plus VoIP =20
towards hundreds of free destinations...
... all that for around 30=80/months.
Just make a simple calculation with the amount of bandwidth in terms =20
of transit. Let's say you're a french ISP, transit price-per-meg could =20=
vary between 10=80 and 20=80 (which is already cheap isn't it ?), =
multiply =20
this by 24Mb/s, now the 30=80 that you charge makes you feel like you'd =20=
better do everything possible to limitate traffic going towards other =20=
ASes.
Certainly sounds like you've screwed your business plan. Let's be =20
honest still, dumping prices on Internet Access also brang the country =20=
amongst the leading Internet countries, having a rather positive =20
effect on competition.
Another side of the story is that once upon a time, ISPs had a =20
naturally OUTBOUND traffic profile, which supposedly is was to good in =20=
terms of ratio to negociate peerings.
Thanks to peer-to-peer, now their ratios are BALANCED, meaning ISPs =20
are now in a dominant position for negociating peerings.
Eventually the question is: why is it that you guys fight p2p while at =20=
the same time benefiting from it, it doesn't quite make sense does it ?
In France, Internet got broken the very 1st day ISPs told people it =20
was cheap. It definitely isn't, but there is no turning back now...
Greg VILLAIN
Independant Network & Telco Architecture Consultant
