how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
7624 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to ssj4android
Re: This is alarming said by ssj4android:What is counted as "peer to peer" traffic though? I'd think a majority of online gaming traffic is peer to peer, and that certainly isn't illegal. I'm not sure what ninja was intending to communicate. Peer-to-peer is an architecture, another common architecture is client-server. Many IM and chat clients, online games, and VOIP applications make peer-to-peer connections.
Peer-to-peer is also often a verbal abbreviation of "Peer-to-peer file sharing." I think the statistics of 1/5th being P2P probably refers only to file sharing. The devices that measure such things don't really check to see if an end point is a server, instead they actually sniff the packets as they go by and figure out what known application protocols are being used within them.
So your gaming traffic is probably not included in the statistic, regardless if the architecture is peer-to-peer or client-server. If your game uses BitTorrent to do its updates, then only that part is counted in the "P2P" column and the rest of the data (move, aim, fire, character) would not be.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
 ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
 ·VOIPo
| reply to ninjatutle
said by ninjatutle:said by ptrowski:said by ninjatutle:Half? And the other half would be legal content like Linux a handful of geeks use? Indy movies everyone watches? Wow patches that a billion people are playing? TV shows people think they have a right to share? Didn't the TV writers go on strike for something recently? I guess I live in a bubble where I think everyone steals movies on P2P. I was thinking more along of the lines of people obtaining works like: The Dark Knight Step Brothers The X Files: I Want to Believe Journey to the Center of the Earth Hancock Hellboy II: The Golden Army Wanted Thanks to all for informing me, albeit it inaccurately of P2P usage. Odd, I did not even know these were all available, and you did? Browsing Torrents again, I see?
--
"A religious war is like children fighting over who has the strongest imaginary friend."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org | |
| reply to ninjatutle
A simple search on google yielded those results  | |
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Yeah, and I'm sure you picked it because isoHunt is so heavily trafficked by legal P2P users. C'mon. Don't be lazy. Use a real source.
Actually, what if I conceded the point and said that most P2P is probably still some kind of copyright infringement, despite recent trends? So what? | |
| reply to ssj4android
said by ssj4android:What is counted as "peer to peer" traffic though? I'd think a majority of online gaming traffic is peer to peer, and that certainly isn't illegal. Right, little ninja buddy thought it'd be clever to link wiki articles.. But he forgets fact, as seen through all his posts.
The entire Xbox 360 and most of the PS3 online games use a P2P network, where either one person is actually hosting the server, or where it's split between all the users upload equally.
--
AMD Athlon 64 FX-53, 1GB Corsair XMS Dual Channel PC-4400 DDR,NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra 256MB, 160GB Seagate SATA - RAID 0, Windows XP Pro | |
 NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
 ·Comcast
·Callcentric
| reply to funchords
Just a couple rebuttal points here...
quote:
In most cases, it will share the file until the user reaches a certain pay-back value. But other P2P programs (Gnutella, eMule) share more like you describe. FTP servers also act in the way you describe.
A lot of popular Bittorrent clients do the same thing as Gnutella and eMule unless you tell it otherwise. It will share and keep sharing even if you have already went over and above the ratio amount. Oh, and most users don't set those options up so it just shares away. So I wouldn't say "In most cases" and say "In rare cases" for that statement.
quote:
FTP and BitTorrent both do this.
Correct, but you left out the part of my post explaining about dynamic dns services and such. Seemed that back in the FTP days, a site could be shutdown pretty easily. Bittorrent is a lot harder to bring down than FTP thats for sure.
You make it sound like FTP back 7-8 years ago was just as effective as Bittorrent which I disagree with. Bittorrent is much more efficient and dare I say better than FTP ever was.
Otherwise, I do have to agree with you on the last part. Your explanation on how to handle the traffic is very good. I think we can all expect bandwidth needs to continue growing. Capping users at the modem level was very foreseeable back in the @Home days. Today, I can still see some kind of data prioritization or QOS hitting the bandwidth playing field. Especially as Bittorrent and file sharing gets more and more popular and easier to use. | |
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Site5.com
·Comcast
·Callcentric
| reply to Reck Havoc
said by Reck Havoc:said by ssj4android:What is counted as "peer to peer" traffic though? I'd think a majority of online gaming traffic is peer to peer, and that certainly isn't illegal. Right, little ninja buddy thought it'd be clever to link wiki articles.. But he forgets fact, as seen through all his posts. The entire Xbox 360 and most of the PS3 online games use a P2P network, where either one person is actually hosting the server, or where it's split between all the users upload equally. Link? Source? | |
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall:Just a couple rebuttal points here... quote:
In most cases, it will share the file until the user reaches a certain pay-back value. But other P2P programs (Gnutella, eMule) share more like you describe. FTP servers also act in the way you describe.
A lot of popular Bittorrent clients do the same thing as Gnutella and eMule unless you tell it otherwise. It will share and keep sharing even if you have already went over and above the ratio amount. Oh, and most users don't set those options up so it just shares away. So I wouldn't say "In most cases" and say "In rare cases" for that statement. I don't think so (I'm about 80% sure here), but I invite you or someone reading to prove me wrong. Uninstall your software and be sure also to ensure its previous configuration files, directories and registry settings are also gone. (Either this or try it on a new computer.)
Install Azureus and uTorrent and see what the settings are at -- the last time that I installed these (more than 6 months ago), those were the most popular by leaps and bounds and both stopped sharing when the ratio 100% 150% 200% or something was reached by default. It is an option that a lot of people change after installing.
There are over 60 applications using BitTorrent according to the DCIA -- and they'll all behave differently, but these two are the main two.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
3 edits | reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall: quote:
FTP and BitTorrent both do this.
Correct, but you left out the part of my post explaining about dynamic dns services and such. Seemed that back in the FTP days, a site could be shutdown pretty easily. Bittorrent is a lot harder to bring down than FTP thats for sure. Oh, now I see. I did read that dyndns point the first time before but I didn't know what your point actually was. Yes, it was easy to get rogue FTP sites shut down back then. Not only did the IP address tip them off, but abuse desks were more responsive to complaints.
You make it sound like FTP back 7-8 years ago was just as effective as Bittorrent which I disagree with. Bittorrent is much more efficient and dare I say better than FTP ever was. Actually we agree on how effective and efficient that BitTorrent is over FTP. I was thinking about what Cisco says topped the bandwidth charts at the time. I'd have to go back and see, but if memory serves me I was talking about how prevalent its usage was -- and it was more than 10 years ago. I think the "bandwidth hog" history goes like this: ftp (12+ ago) - http (~8 ago) - bittorrent (~4 ago) - http (~now).
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
 ssj4androidRedefining Reality
join:2002-04-14
Wyoming, MI
1 edit | reply to Reck Havoc
Yeah, that's what I was referring to. Wii as well, which is the only system I've captured traffic for. Brawl seems to have one main game server, but in a three player game each player sends UDP packets to the other two.
Indeed, most P2P file transfer applications use TCP, which is connection based and requires one node to be a server while the other is a client. Gaming usually uses UDP, which seems more like a "peer to peer" transport protocol to me, but does often use at least temporary host servers. In games like Halo 3, all peers maintain enough state information to become the host if the current one drops out. AFAIK, voice communication on Xbox LIVE is direct from one peer to all others.
There's also programs such as Joost. What is that counted as? | |
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | said by ssj4android:most P2P file transfer applications use TCP, which [...] requires one node to be a server while the other is a client. I'm not sure what you mean here, but either way I work it out its inaccurate. TCP doesn't require one side to be server and the other to be client, and the very definition of P2P means that there is no server and no client. It may be a distinction without a difference, but it hit me funny. Gaming usually uses UDP, which seems more like a "peer to peer" transport protocol to me, Also, a case where one UDP has nothing to do with the P2P nature.
Think of TCP and UDP as languages.
TCP has already worked out rules of etiquette about who says what under what conditions, when to ask for information to repeated, and how to say hello and goodbye. TCP is fine for most uses, but sometimes it lack features you want or in the case of streaming video, it has features that you don't need.
UDP is a much looser language, where the UDP "syllables" can be used to create exactly the languages that you want. You can have the connectedness stateful nature of TCP without the retransmission request for a 10% bad packet, for example. Think of P2P or client-server as military ranks.
At some level, all hosts on the internet are peers but some peers have a central function -- e.g. they serve web pages, or answer file-transfer requests, or respond to other queries. These hosts are servers (masters) and the hosts that connect to them are clients (supplicants). That architecture is client-server. In a client-server arrangement, clients only connect through servers who arrange all of the processing and other communication. You have to follow the chain of command.
In a peer-to-peer architecture, there is no hierarchy. End-hosts communicate with other end-hosts directly and no central device is required. If there are communal processing tasks to be performed, this work is generally distributed among the peers somehow. There is no hierarchy. I hope that helps.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Site5.com
·Comcast
·Callcentric
| reply to funchords
said by funchords:said by Nightfall:Just a couple rebuttal points here... quote:
In most cases, it will share the file until the user reaches a certain pay-back value. But other P2P programs (Gnutella, eMule) share more like you describe. FTP servers also act in the way you describe.
A lot of popular Bittorrent clients do the same thing as Gnutella and eMule unless you tell it otherwise. It will share and keep sharing even if you have already went over and above the ratio amount. Oh, and most users don't set those options up so it just shares away. So I wouldn't say "In most cases" and say "In rare cases" for that statement. I don't think so (I'm about 80% sure here), but I invite you or someone reading to prove me wrong. Uninstall your software and be sure also to ensure its previous configuration files, directories and registry settings are also gone. (Either this or try it on a new computer.) Install Azureus and uTorrent and see what the settings are at -- the last time that I installed these (more than 6 months ago), those were the most popular by leaps and bounds and both stopped sharing when the ratio 100% 150% 200% or something was reached by default. It is an option that a lot of people change after installing. There are over 60 applications using BitTorrent according to the DCIA -- and they'll all behave differently, but these two are the main two. Not having any software installed on my system previously, I took the challenge. I opened ports on my firewall and used 2 clients. Utorrent to start. Utorrent will keep sharing even after your ratio is passed. There is an option to stop seeding after you hit your ratio, but that is not checked. Even if checked, the default number is 4kb/second. So user intervention is necessary to turn that on. This is on 1.7.7
Same to go with Azureus. The option was disabled by default. So once again its up to the user to turn that on if you want it.
I guess I learned a few things from this experiment. I wasn't 100% sure either, but I now know that you at least have to intervene if you don't want to be sharing after you hit your ratio. The Utorrent setting was the easiest to find, but just because its there doesn't mean the users are going to turn it off. As has been evidenced by various P2P applications like Kazaa, seems that users just let that darn application run all the time back in the day. Sure, the experienced users make sure the right options are turned on, so that covers everyone here on BBR. 
You are right though, there are a lot of applications out there and 2 apps don't make a default. It could have changed in the last 6 months too where these things were set to default. | | |
|
ssj4androidRedefining Reality
join:2002-04-14
Wyoming, MI | reply to funchords
I know how TCP and UDP work, I just don't know what to consider a "server" (I like precise definitions).
My logic is TCP requires one node (the server) to listen for a connection and another node (the client) to initiate the connection. But perhaps that's a faulty definition, as which node was the listening one is irrelevant in, say, bittorrent.
The purest example of a p2p paradigm I can think of is a multicast chat program, where one node doesn't know and doesn't care how many other nodes are on the network. | |
| reply to backfeed
Re: There are »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damn···atistics
Benjamin Disraeli... Someone who obviously failed stats.
--
---
Eleven years of carrying The Clue Bat... | |
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to Nightfall
Re: This is alarming Thanks for doing that! Huh, I could have swore ... I stand corrected. | |
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to ssj4android
said by ssj4android:I know how TCP and UDP work, I just don't know what to consider a "server" (I like precise definitions). My logic is TCP requires one node (the server) to listen for a connection and another node (the client) to initiate the connection. But perhaps that's a faulty definition, as which node was the listening one is irrelevant in, say, bittorrent. The purest example of a p2p paradigm I can think of is a multicast chat program, where one node doesn't know and doesn't care how many other nodes are on the network. You are observing that most servers listen for incoming connections -- but that's common, not definitive. Who makes the connection and who listens is more of a function of how the end-points set up the communication channel, but client-server has more to do with centralization of actual work or resources.
To illustrate that it's the processing that is the chief consideration, consider the X-Server which connects outbound to X-client programs but since the terminal does the graphics processing, it is the server to the client applicaitons.
Here's one definition: »www.sei.cmu.edu/str/descriptions···ver.html
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| reply to ninjatutle
Of course illegal material is being passed.
So are concerts of taping/trading friendly bands, tv shows, etc.
So, 20% is not illegal. 20% is p2p. That's all you can say. | |
|
