Search:  

 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


 
Forums » Building a Better P2P » Sounds too easy
Search Topic:
Uniqs:
45
Share Topic:
RSS topic:
toggle:
flat / full
normal / watch
Post a:
Post a:
Better for whom? »
« There Must be Peers on my ISP's Network for this to work  
AuthorAll Replies


jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
Sounds too easy

I get the concept and it makes sense - get data from the closest node.

Why don't current P2P clients just use your network subnet to make an best guess as to which nodes are closer and give them priority?


swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable

quote:
Q: Why cannot P2P achieve the benefits of P4P by itself?
A: In the current Internet, for P2P to explore peering flexibility to improve network and application efficiency, it will have to probe the network to reverse engineer information such as topology, and network status. This is however rather challenging in spite of significant progress in network measurement techniques.
Reading the pdf reveals it is more like a protocol and interface to enable p2p and other applications to get info from the ISP (or a "trusted third party") about network conditions, and cues about which routes to use. So p2p apps will need modification to use this, and can't do it alone because it relies on the ISP or special server ("i-tracker") to serve info on preferred routes.

The client could be programmed to prefer local links, but p4p lets the network management people manage it by indicating which links are preferred for a combination of reasons, whether they're local or remote.

Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

reply to jjoshua
i see this benefiting more of the legit P2P uses like the blizzard downloader. where companies could peer with say Comcast and have the seed itself with in the network meaning no 3rd party network uses needed.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Boston, MA

reply to swhx7
Even so, P2P apps could (and should) still make a significant difference by giving preference based on latency. It wouldn't be perfect by any means, but favoring a connection with 20 ms latency is probably much more likely to be closer/local than one with 200 ms latency (I would say "ping time", but that would be confused with something ICMP-specific).
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
-
Forums » Building a Better P2PBetter for whom? »
« There Must be Peers on my ISP's Network for this to work  


Tuesday, 10-Nov 00:06:26 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.
page compression OFF
Most commented news this week
· [82] VoIP Over 3G Still Not Working For iPhone
· [77] Verizon Keeps Swinging At AT&T
· [33] Bill Would Force ISPs To Block Financial Scams
· [21] Mediacom Hints At 50, 100 Mbps Speeds
· [13] Clearwire To Get Another $1.5 Billion
· [10] Monday Morning Links
· [9] 15 States Have Now Gotten Broadband Mapping Money
· [5] AT&T Launching New 7.2 Mbps 3G Modem
Most people now reading
· Framed for child porn 151; by a PC virus [Security]
· 3.x Feral Druid - Bear Tanking Guide [World of Warcraft]
· Windows 7 boot manager editing questions [Microsoft Help]
· How in the world am I going to get into college? [General Questions]
· Google Has Acquired Gizmo5 [VOIP Tech Chat]
· 60 Minutes piece on cyber security last night [Security]
· Massive Slowdowns? [cover,1584]
· Blown out Ballasts [Home Repair & Improvement]
· My cat is reluctant to exercise. [General Questions]
· [SU] Apple Releases Mac OS X 10.6.2 [All Things Macintosh]