Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Boston, MA
| reply to swhx7
Re: Sounds too easy
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? |
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to jjoshua
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. |
|
