[104100] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [NANOG] [Nanog] P2P traffic optimization Was: Lies, Damned Lies,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Osterweil)
Thu Apr 24 11:59:43 2008
In-Reply-To: <48108FAA.7000103@pando.com>
From: Eric Osterweil <eoster@cs.ucla.edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:59:23 -0700
To: "Keith O'Neill" <keith@pando.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 24, 2008, at 6:48 AM, Keith O'Neill wrote:
> The iTrackers just helps the nodes to talk to each other in a more
> efficient way, all the iTracker does is talk to another p2p tracker
> and
> is used for network topology, has no caching or file information or
> user
> information..
>
After reading the P4P paper, it seems like the iTrackers have some
large implications. Off the top of my head:
- - The paper says, "An iTracker provides... network status/
topology..." doesn't it seem like you wouldn't want to send this to
P2P clients? Is the "PID" supposed to preserve privacy here? I have
some doubts about how well the PID helps after exposing ASN and LOC.
- - As a P2P developer, wouldn't I be worried about giving the iTracker
the ability to tell my clients that their upload/download capacity is
0 (or just above)? It seems like iTrackers are allowed to control
P2P clients completely w/ this recommendation, right? That would be
very useful for an ISP, but a very dangerous DoS vector to clients.
These are just a couple of the thoughts that I had while reading.
Eric
> Keith O'Neill
> Pando Networks
>
> Mike Gonnason wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 5:30 AM, Michael Holstein
>> <michael.holstein@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>> ISP's have been very clear that they regard their network maps
>>>> as being proprietary for many good reasons. 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. The iTracker can be run by the ISP or by a
>>>> trusted third party, as the ISP prefers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Won't this approach (using a ISP-managed intermediate)
>>> ultimately end up
>>> being co-opted by the lawyers for the various industry "interest
>>> groups"
>>> and thus be ignored by the p2p users?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Michael Holstein
>>> Cleveland State University
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> -Mike Gonnason
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NANOG mailing list
>> NANOG@nanog.org
>> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
> NANOG@nanog.org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
iD4DBQFIEK5hK/tq6CJjZQIRAgXqAJd8t3XkmYqo1WYaJP7qOF4W67tYAJ9C5hZ+
iwVc8ZU8AJ3f98KCFCq8Eg==
=LEPV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
