|reply to neufuse |
What you are saying is somewhat true, but not thinking in the right way. First off the situation that you are proposing would actually be helped by the proposed scheme. Think of it this way, P2P works by opening up 10s/100s of TCP connections. So lets say that you are sharing a pipe w/ a P2P user and the pipe is saturated (together you are wanting to use more that what is available). Lets say the pipe has a capacity of 100. Currently if you have 1 TCP connection open and someone else has 90, you get to use a total of 1.1% of the pipe. Now lets say you open 10 connections to download your pictures (something a browser typically won't do, unless things are changed they limit you to 2). Now you get to use 10% of the connection. Now lets move to the way that the article says it should work (without the special burst addition which would help you even more). For simplicity, again let the other user have 90 connections and you only have 1. When you go to download your your first picture you get to use 50% of the connection. In this scenario you can actually download all 10 of your pictures one after the other in less than 1/5 of the time.
Now the second part of the argument that the other user on P2P is not hurt by this. Why? Lets say they are downloading a large file (the reason most people go to P2P). Now your files are small in comparison and will easily finish under either circumstances before the other user's download. This means that you didn't actually reduces the total length of their download because under the old way you would have used a smaller amount of bandwidth but used it for longer, while the new way you use more for shorter, but the total size is same.
As for your commented about overselling the connections, I don't want to go too much into that issue, but this suggested protocol would help in those situations as well. Basically it will guarantee you an equal part of the bandwidth. Also, you are misinterpreting the problem. This has nothing to do with the speed caps that are given to you and multiplying them.
In reality the author is correct that the TCP protocol is broken in this aspect. You could argue that the protocol itself violates Net Neutrality. It depends on where you are trying to keep things equal. Should it be on the TCP connection level or at the subscriber level. Basically should we even it out between the # of connections that my neighbors and I make or the # of neighbors. Personally I vote fore the # of neighbors.
Yarmouth Port, MA
said by socrplyr:But P2P protocols only transmit data on 3-4 of them at any one time. (The rest may remain open and idle or may be disconnected after exchanging a small amount of overhead data.)
P2P works by opening up 10s/100s of TCP connections
This overlooked reality breaks your conclusions.
The advantage, if any, is not 10x or 100x, but only 3x or 4x. (And it's not even that sometimes, since it's unlikely those 3 or 4 connections all follow the same route and will experience the same congestion.)
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report.