KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| The idea is good, reduce traffic and bandwidth usages
... this is good for users *and* providers.
Problem is, can they resist the urge to keep their greedy little paws off? I doubt it. I expect they will want to provision in filters, blocks, QoS etc which will essentially wreck the whole point, and force users back to un-gimped P2P applications.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| quote:
Will ISP executives be able to resist impulses to charge customers more for prioritized P2P?
Highly doubtful. I am envisioning ridiculously priced tiers for "favored" traffic such as the above referenced. They're already fucking consumers up the ass reaping maxium profits by double, and, in some cases, triple dipping on overage fees. This latest development will enable an even more gluttonous approach. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to KrK
said by KrK  :and force users back to un-gimped P2P applications. Maybe that threat will keep them honest?
Is P4P an open standard? Will P2P client authors be able to create P4P clients?
I downloaded Ubuntu 8.10 a couple weeks ago. I left my computer on all weekend, serving 16 copies for the 2 I downloaded. Occasionally I looked at the peers that were connecting to me. They were from New Zealand, China, Brazil.
That didn't seem too efficient when, I bet, they could have used distance to choose better peer arrangements.
Mark |
|
FTTC
join:2008-10-01
Mount Rainier, MD
 ·Verizon FIOS
| what
this is sweet, nice to see improvement coming soon.
If I have to pay a couple extra $ I really dont care. you dont have to get it if you dont want to you know, this is for people with cash like me.
sorry to rub it in oh wait no im not get owened poor loosers. =) |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| P4P should be ASN preference
I hope P4P is nothing more than giving preference to peers on the same ASN as you, or least number of ASN hops from you (your ISP's direct peers), or avoiding sending transcontinent. That is ultimately the only way to reduce p2p traffic, or atleast make it more LANish. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
3 edits |  All these worst case scenarios very unlikely
Playing "devils advocate" here, I just don't see all these worst case scenarios ever happening. Extra charges and favored content are not going to be an issue, especially with "network neutrality" being such a big deal with the FCC and Congress.
The only thing I see as possible(and even this is unlikely initially) is that P4P systems will try and prevent the violation of copyrighted material. Something built by and for the ISPs may not want to encourage or make easier the trading of pirated files.
Most of the worries are just the nightmares of the anti-corporate paranoids.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| reply to amigo_boy
Re: The idea is good, reduce traffic and bandwidth usages
said by amigo_boy :said by KrK :and force users back to un-gimped P2P applications. Maybe that threat will keep them honest? You mean in the same manner that ISPs are so "honest"? LMAO. You're living in a dream world. |
|
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
| Let them try
First of all, I applaud any effort to reduce bandwidth. Frankly, I can't understand why current or even past P2P clients didn't implement something like this, since it benefits the end user. Why would a Comcast user want to download a file from China when the same file is available from another Comcast user? Odds are, the file that's closer will be served up faster.
Having said that, let the ISP's try to place restrictions on this. As soon as they do, two things will happen. First, other P2P clients will implement the same technology, which may happen even if P4P comes without any catches. Second, you can bet that, even if the ISP's don't release the source code, someone will manage to decompile the application and remove any restrictions it contains. Mark my words, it'll happen. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| said by ISurfTooMuch :First of all, I applaud any effort to reduce bandwidth. Frankly, I can't understand why current or even past P2P clients didn't implement something like this, since it benefits the end user. They already do, in the way that the P2P clients select peers to pair with for longer-term higher-speed transfers, but it takes 15-30 minutes or so to work through the list of peers (in BitTorrent). The same effect works in eMule and Gnutella but it's based on how many times the same pairs will trade with each other based on their scoring systems.
P4P adds intelligence provided by the ISPs as to where their own routes are vs. the routes of their most expensive transit providers. That intelligence is used to bias the results in peer selection so that the first set peers that you connect with will be heavy on the more local peers.
Of course, all of these tests have been closed and we've just got their word to go on -- but their words are that YES it will be open-source, YES P2P client authors will be able to incorporate it, YES P4P is a choice and users can opt to ignore it without penalty.
Those are great words, and I hope they come true.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
DSLTech
join:2000-12-30
San Jose, CA
| Pandora's box.
Once an ISP has the tools to understand a differentiate P2P traffic, what will stop the government from requiring them to investigate the traffic?
My theory for ISPs: The less you know about your traffic, the better. If you KNOW about your P2P stuff, you can't claim that you don't any more. If you cant claim that you don't, then you will have to spend money on govt and legal requests to investigate P2P activities.
Ignorance is bliss. |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
| Useless without software
Doing up their own P2P protocol assumes that you need new client software too, unless they do this as an extension to the BitTorrent protocol and contribute code or make a deal with BitTorrent Inc. to update uTorrent, it's not going to fly.
That said, does P4P really offer any advantages over existing ISP-level BitTorrent caching solutions? |
|
AVonGauss
Premium,MVM
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
1 edit | An Opinion...
I am going to disclaim this post as from an engineering side (writing software) I don't tend to work a lot with BitTorrent applications and from a user side I often find it more annoying than rewarding so I might be a bit biased.
To use a cheezy clique, I think we're getting the cart in front of the horse in this and similar articles. The broader and more immediate question is still will the idea even take off? I am not involved with the effort, but as an outsider it looks like there are a couple different business objectives trying to be achieved and I'm not sure they all compliment each other.
For this or a similar effort to be successful, I believe ISPs will need to implement this as an open and free "topology type" service with an open API that a client (inside ISP) or server (outside ISP) application can take advantage of without regard to the underlying application (i.e. BitTorrent). This may be the intent, but I personally have not seen this clearly demonstrated yet. In fairness, most of this seems to have been a corporate driven effort so far and may only now be getting ready to move in to more of a community style endeavour.
BitTorrent, the (sole?) P2P application that P4P seems to be constructed around, evolved to satisfy specific needs and desires by the Internet user - some legal, some not so much so. If those same needs are not met as they can be using today's techniques, it is doubtful that this will succeed in mass adoption.
To give one specific example, the typical user will not mind helping a company such as Canonical or Revision 3 distribute their content (P2P style) as they do not directly charge that consumer for the download. However, for company's such as Microsoft or Universal who do want to charge for their content or the original purchase, people are generally less inclined to use their connection to help save that company some cash in distribution charges - even if it's a service pack. Companies have been trying for years to get mass adoption of P2P technologies to efficiently (read: cost effectively) distribute online content, most have been unsuccessful and hence the expansion of CDNs such as Akamai. |
|
pbarrow
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Montgomery, AL | reply to KrK
Re: The idea is good, reduce traffic and bandwidth usages
Seems to me it would take away their excuse for higher prices and bandwidth caps and overage charges.
I won't hold my breath on that happening. |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to FTTC
Re: what
said by FTTC :this is sweet, nice to see improvement coming soon. Not so fast there bubby. When was the last time your ISP did something for YOUR benefit. keep it all within cox, you know who exactly to send the nastygrams to.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee |
|
Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
·Comcast
|  Flaw with P4P?
P4P sounds like a good idea, until you have a case where there's a piece of the file missing and none of the customers of your ISP has it.
How does P4P work in this case?
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired. |
|
Laird Popkin
@verizon.net
| "... where there's a piece of the file missing and none of the customers of your ISP has it. How does P4P work in this case?"
P4P doesn't prevent the P2P network from getting the data from outside the ISP, it just helps the P2P software pick closer peers if there are any. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to amigo_boy
Re: The idea is good, reduce traffic and bandwidth usages
said by amigo_boy :Maybe that threat will keep them honest? I think they'll roll out P4P as the "Supported" peer to peer standard and then declare the "old" P2P as a violation of TOS, etc and therefore justify "Network management techniques" to block/filter/reset "old school" P2P. Problem is, almost certainly the "new" peer to peer standard will come with built in baggage like DRM or etc
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to ISurfTooMuch
Re: Let them try
said by ISurfTooMuch :First of all, I applaud any effort to reduce bandwidth. Frankly, I can't understand why current or even past P2P clients didn't implement something like this, since it benefits the end user. Most of the support for doing a P4P-like system already exists in the current BT code. All that is needed is to add code to flag each peer as Type1 (same netblock as you), Type2 (same Network), or Type3 (not on my ISP's Network). This information can be located via a WHOIS to whois.arin.net. You query it for your IPN and this will tell you your Netblock (Netblock Name and IPN Range). The Type2s are located by editing the Netblock name. Any peer whose IPN is not in the Type1 or Type2 range is automatically Type3. Now you parse the list of peers to get Type1s. If this does not yield the number of maximum sessions that the user has defined, start adding Type2s. If you still have open slots, go for Type3s. In each case, you select from the current pool using the same methods that are currently used.
This causes you to first talk to near peers, then others on your ISP's network before going out of your ISP's network. No need for P4P mucking with (or monitoring/approving/censoring) your connections since your client does all the selection as it does right now (just more efficiently). |
|
lolwhat
We Are Toast
Premium
join:2001-06-11
USSA | please include a post subject
quote:
which includes AT&T, Verizon and AT&T
Uh? I guess AT&T is big enough to mention twice.  |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to DSLTech
Re: Pandora's box.
said by DSLTech :The less you know about your traffic, the better. You can't manage a network if you don't know what's traversing the connections. Contrary to the desires/beliefs of some of the elitists in this forum who believe they should have an unfettered "dumb pipe" from their ISPs, a network does need to be managed.said by DSLTech :Ignorance is bliss. Remaining ignorant is also apathetic IMO. |
|
