[104097] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [NANOG] [Nanog] P2P traffic optimization Was: Lies, Damned Lies,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alexander Harrowell)
Thu Apr 24 10:24:45 2008
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:24:26 +0100
From: "Alexander Harrowell" <a.harrowell@gmail.com>
To: "Mike Gonnason" <gonnason@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5cb5bcea0804240638o6c3a96c2vb8ff86e2ef9e0214@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Mike Gonnason <gonnason@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This idea is what I am concerned about. Until the whole copyright mess
> gets sorted out, wouldn't these iTracker supernodes be a goldmine of
> logs for copyright lawyers? They would have a great deal of
> information about what exactly is being transferred, by whom and for
> how long.
A good point about the approach of announcing a list of prefixes and
preference metrics, rather than doing lookups for each peer individually, is
that the supernode's logs will only tell you who used a p2p client at all;
nothing about what they did with it.
If you have to lookup each peer, the log would be enough to start building a
social graph of the p2p network, which would be a good start towards knowing
who to send the nastygram to. Reading the following description of the P4P
group's current approach, this looks like it's what they're doing:
>The approach that P4P takes is to have an intermediate server (which we
call an iTracker) that >processes the network maps and provides abstracted
guidance (lists of IP prefixes and >percentages) to the p2p networks that
allows them to figure out which peers are near each other.
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
