UDP BitTorrent Will Destroy The Interwebs! ..says Richard Bennett. 'Sensationist nonsense,' BitTorrent tells us... Monday Dec 01 2008 14:41 EDT Over the weekend, we noted that uTorrent has released an alpha client that uses UDP for P2P traffic delivery. UDP makes up roughly 2% of all Internet traffic today, and generally isn't used for data delivery because it doesn't guarantee either the delivery or the quality of the data being delivered (nor is it quite as easily managed). While the migration to UDP could potentially make filtering of P2P more difficult -- raising the hackles of some anti-network-neutrality ministers and ISPs -- BitTorrent tells us the decision was aimed at actually making BitTorrent more friendly. According to posts at the uTorrent forum, the new version lays uTP, the micro transport protocol, on top of UDP, which provides for better flow control and prevents the kind of TCP RST packet attacks Comcast has used to throttle upstream P2P traffic. Robb Topolski, the DSLReports user who first discovered Comcast's packet forgery tactics, thinks the shift to uTP/UDP is a good one: quote: It's a very good thing for the network. This new protocol YIELDS to other streams. In other words, it's less aggressive. The idea, eventually, is that background file transfers are handled like -- well -- background transfers -- similar to the way that background processes take a lighter toll on the CPU while you're actively using the computer. P2P users have the same concerns -- this change keeps their interactive uses snappy, and during crunch time it ought to help others as well.
Yet Richard Bennett, perhaps the Internet's most vocal opponent of network neutrality, pens a piece over at The Register proclaiming that the shift will result in an Internet meltdown -- and worries that network neutrality laws would prohibit ISPs from taking on this new throttling challenge. The author quietly states his case by suggesting that those who would support the use of UDP for P2P transfers (like apparently, BitTorrent creator Bram Cohen), are little more than selfish junkies, mindlessly braying for the looming apocalypse: quote: Some of the people who use this system are spoiled children with no more concern for the greater good than junkies looking for their next fix. They can’t be allowed to spoil it for the rest of us, and the only practical means to prevent their doing so is to unleash effective management upon them. . .The best way to ensure that uTP doesn’t kill the internet is to throttle it at the source, and any law that stands in the way of ISPs exercising that level of management is deadly to the internet.
Simon Morris, head of Product Management at BitTorrent, thinks Bennett is a little confused. While it's true that a UDP-based P2P network will cause some problems for ISP throttling (something confirmed by our users), that isn't the goal. "We’re doing this to implement our own more sensitive congestion control on top of UDP," he notes. "We felt that TCP’s congestion control was problematic in that it relies on looking for packet loss as an indication of congestion. TCP spots the problem only after it has occurred." "By contrast, our prototype UDP-based protocol (called uTP) detects congestion by measuring transmission times between peers – if packet delivery *slows down* then we infer that congestion may be about to occur and immediately throttle back on delivery speed," he says. "The point here is a protocol that is more sensitive, NOT a protocol that is more greedy," insists Morris. "The idea we'd "declare war" is unfortunately sensationalist nonsense." Yet according to Bennett, "even the downloading fiends who haunt the message boards at Broadband Reports" can see the use of UDP for P2P transfers will result in an Internet implosion. Any thoughts, haunting downloading fiends? Update: The reviews are in! GigaOM notes that when it comes to Richard Bennett, "a little scaremongering can go a long way to make the case for an ISP-based network management clampdown on P2P traffic." Torrent Freak proclaims that a significant chunk of what Bennett's saying simply isn't true (but it does get the Register plenty of hits). The Industry Standard says Bennett offers broad assumptions with few references. Writer Robert Hallock pens an interesting explanation of TCP vs. UDP in a counter piece to Bennett, suggesting "we wait to attack the potential problem with data and evidence rather than suppose and conjecture our way into the unforgiving embrace of network non-neutrality." |
MemphisPCGuyTaking Care Business Premium Member join:2004-05-09 Memphis, TN |
More...must download more ... brains!!!!!
With caps in place by the largest ISP and the others following suit, does it really matter any more? | |
| | Jerm join:2000-04-10 Richland, WA |
Jerm
Member
2008-Dec-1 3:30 pm
Re: More...This is going to KILL gamers when the ISPs react - all of a sudden your UDP game traffic will be shaped/throttled and completely kill your ping.
Way to go uTP! (not) | |
| | | MashikiBalking The Enemy's Plans join:2002-02-04 Woodstock, ON |
Re: More...said by Jerm:This is going to KILL gamers when the ISPs react - all of a sudden your UDP game traffic will be shaped/throttled and completely kill your ping. Way to go uTP! (not) Might actually be the issue that gets Joe Six Pack to actually realize something is wrong then, rather then those of us who are in the small minority and know what this is about. | |
| | | | |
Re: More...As bad as it sounds, that'll be a good thing. Network neutrality will come home even more, to anyone who plays games, and people will start complaining. Loudly. | |
| | | | | knightmbEverybody Lies join:2003-12-01 Franklin, TN |
Re: More...quote: UDP makes up roughly 2% of all Internet traffic today, and generally isn't used for data delivery because it doesn't guarantee either the delivery or the quality of the data being delivered.
Does this mean that once all BT clients switch to this and the UDP traffic goes up to be 10% of all Internet traffic flow, we can get rid of these stupid, fake survey's they say all the Internet traffic is BT because now they have the entire UDP graph to see that most of the traffic is people watching paid movies online? Just a thought.... | |
| | | | | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
to iansltx
said by iansltx:As bad as it sounds, that'll be a good thing. Network neutrality will come home even more, to anyone who plays games, and people will start complaining. Loudly. No it won't. More and more ISPs will learn from Comcast. Throttle ALL bandwidth and not be protocol specific. That won't break any current or future network neutrality provisions. Comcast hasn't taken the next step YET - but it is coming as has been seen with other ISPs. And that is "bill by bytes transferred" billing tiers and overage fees. | |
| | | | | | Noah VailOh God please no. Premium Member join:2004-12-10 SouthAmerica |
Pricing out both sides of their....said by FFH5:Comcast hasn't taken the next step YET - but it is coming as has been seen with other ISPs. And that is "bill by bytes transferred" billing tiers and overage fees. Billing-by-the-byte for consumption users, of course; with Emma Email and Wilford Webby still paying the same amount for their 1MB/mo. Amazing how one pricing policy will be 'fair' for one type of consumer while it'll take a different pricing policy to create 'fairness' for another type of consumer. NV | |
| | | | | | badtrip Premium Member join:2004-03-20 |
to FFH5
Re: More...Bill by bytes is ridiculous. A good portion of the bytes that are transferred to my box are unwanted and unasked for. No offense, but I don't want to pay to view anyone's avatars on this forum and I certainly do not want to pay to view banner and flash ads.
As for overages, these guys are trying to use a drought-time water utility payment model for internet service. | |
| | | | | | | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2008-Dec-1 6:13 pm
Re: More...Then you probably shouldn't visit this site, or sites like this. If you don't want to view avatars, you can always block images, or better yet, use a text-based browser. | |
| | | | | | | | DataDocMy avatar looks like me, if I was 2D. Premium Member join:2000-05-14 Hedgesville, WV ·StarLink ·HughesNet
1 recommendation |
DataDoc
Premium Member
2008-Dec-1 8:07 pm
Re: More...You've missed the point completely. Think of the difference between sites that are text based and those that use Flash for everything possible. You don't know how many bytes you're about to get until you're there. And how many bytes is a Google map? or weather information?
Who knows? Nobody,until you get your bill. | |
| | | | | | | | | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2008-Dec-2 7:02 am
Re: More...I got the point very well. Some people want to use a service unfettered with minimal consequences, but they aren't willing to pay appropriately.
How much money does it cost to leave my TV plugged in to an electrical outlet? How much will my water and gas bills rise with a guest staying in the house? The concept of pay for what you use has been around for quite some time and I don't expect to see it go away. | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
not me 2
Anon
2008-Dec-2 1:49 pm
Re: More...Another option in a pay by the byte system is to drive someone off the net by constantly hitting their system with data. A normal DOS or DDOS could force someone to leave the Internet just because the of the cost even if that person never did anything more on the Internet than check for email. | |
|
| | | | | | | badtrip Premium Member join:2004-03-20 |
to openbox9
said by openbox9:Then you probably shouldn't visit this site, or sites like this. If you don't want to view avatars, you can always block images, or better yet, use a text-based browser. Just because my browser doesn't render a picture doesn't mean the data needed to render that picture wasn't sent. My point was I come to this forum to share in everyone's views, I'd happily pay for that. A pic of McCain/Palin, not so much. | |
| | | | | | | | | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2008-Dec-2 2:01 pm
Re: More...said by badtrip:My point was I come to this forum to share in everyone's views, I'd happily pay for that. A pic of McCain/Palin, not so much. That's equivalent to saying that you only want one of the articles on the front page of a news site to be delivered even though you're requesting the whole page. What about the header and footer on each page here at DSLR? Why should you have to pay to receive those bits when you most likely aren't interested in them? | |
| | | | | | | | | | badtrip Premium Member join:2004-03-20 |
badtrip
Premium Member
2008-Dec-3 10:58 am
Re: More...Exactly. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
1 recommendation |
to badtrip
said by badtrip:Just because my browser doesn't render a picture doesn't mean the data needed to render that picture wasn't sent. My point was I come to this forum to share in everyone's views, I'd happily pay for that. A pic of McCain/Palin, not so much. Ah, I don't think you understand how browsers work. They request the picture to be sent. A text browser will not as it does not know how to render it. It will only bring down the IMG tag, not the referenced image. | |
|
| | | | | | SSidlovOther Things On My Mind Premium Member join:2000-03-03 Pompton Lakes, NJ |
to badtrip
said by badtrip: No offense, but I don't want to pay to view anyone's avatars on this forum and I certainly do not want to pay to view banner and flash ads. Then you will like this article: » www.theregister.co.uk/20 ··· g_study/ which reports on a 'green' browsing study and accuses Flash et al, as consuming more wattage on our computers.... | |
| | | | | | | | |
playahata
Anon
2008-Dec-3 7:13 pm
Re: More...stop being conservatives, this is 2008, every house should have 20Mbps+ connections already, unfiltered, uncapped. | |
|
| | | | | |
to FFH5
Ya... as by the byte model, one size fits all is a good theory. Next time you go to the doctor, don't tell them your ailment. One size fits all. Penicillin will work for your cure all. You might have a major illness. but penicillin is the cure. Trust me. One size fits all by your logic.
Isps would be smart to just offer several tiers, contrary to your lack of every having logic. One for minor users and with caps, one for the moderate users and with caps, and one for the extreme users, and unlimited. Give consumers the choice. Not only can you turn a profit as most people go to the cheapest or moderate tier, and consume less, but you'll be reaping an extra cost from your heavy users.
Logic.. the absence of it in your posts always amazes me. | |
| | | | | | |
Anyfish to FFH5
Anon
2008-Dec-4 8:10 pm
to FFH5
FFH5 ] Comcast hasn't taken the next step YET - but it is coming as has been seen with other ISPs. And that is "bill by bytes transferred" billing tiers and overage fees. would "bill by kilobytes sent" billing be so bad? (it simply means that the sender of the data pays but not the receiver. sound familiar? this is how the postal and telegram works. Bonus! Advertisers might then consider how big their fancy flash ads are) | |
|
| MashikiBalking The Enemy's Plans join:2002-02-04 Woodstock, ON |
to MemphisPCGuy
Only until the bulk of content moves away from traditional media and towards the net. So it simply boils down to time. | |
|
moonpuppy (banned) join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD
1 recommendation |
Network Neutrality is the devil.....We need more caps and higher prices and less use of the internet for ISPs to survive. | |
| | ztmikeMark for moderation Premium Member join:2001-08-02 La Porte, IN |
ztmike
Premium Member
2008-Dec-1 3:10 pm
Re: Network Neutrality is the devil.....said by moonpuppy:We need more caps and higher prices and less use of the internet for ISPs to survive. Sadly that's how MOST of the major U.S broadband ISPS think, I'm still sorta shocked Verizon hasn't capped their FiOS users. But then again..they are not pushing the limits of fiber internet either. As far as the new build of utorrent..doesn't sound like it will do much good, as I'm still using a older version and have Comcast and I have noticed full upload speeds when uploading on utorrent. | |
|
|
uTP is GOOD!Seriously,
Small Scale: uTP's yielding characteristics mean that I can have BitTorrent on in the background and it not disrupt whatever I'm doing in the foreground
Large Scale: uTP's yielding characteristics mean that, if uTP is causing congestion on an ISP link, it throttles itself back gracefully, providing maximum speed while steering clear of collisions with other traffic
Opposition is acting just plain childish now.
Look at it this way:
You're standing in line. A person is in front of you. He notices you look like you're in a hurry and offers to switch places with you. Instead of accepting, you yell at him and tell him he's a burden to society and to get out of the line altogether or you'll call the cops.
Tell me how I'm erring here. UDP traffic is still counted in ISP data caps anyway, so why does it really matter?
Bottom line: uTP skirts around non-legit ISP throttling practices, yes, but it alleviates the concern that supposedly caused these tactics in the first place: flow control.
Really, if BitTorrent is proposing to self-inflict lower priority to its own traffic, with the result being better QoS on any connection in which BT is used...what's the fracking problem?!? | |
| | axus join:2001-06-18 Washington, DC |
axus
Member
2008-Dec-1 4:27 pm
Re: uTP is GOOD!I'm a little skeptical, they'll have to prove it to me. How does uTP recognize that the network is dropping packets? I thought that UDP not having a built-in retransmit method meant that you never know for sure what happened to your packet... you just have to assume after a certain amount of time.
In the ideal case, UDP could use less bandwidth, but I imagine it would just increase utilization while being more efficient.
The worry in the Register article is that VoIP and games using UDP will no longer get their "free" QoS on the routers by using UDP. I don't know if they are full of baloney or not, because UDP is supposed to be unreliable. It seems plausible that increasing the UDP traffic could cause issues, but I'm thinking it's worth a try.
I know Bittorrent has been looking at making the BT protocol more efficient for ISPs, perhaps they've done some testing and this really is nicer? Only one way to find out; I'm glad that internet applications don't have to be approved by some committee before they are released. | |
| | | Matt3All noise, no signal. Premium Member join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC |
Matt3
Premium Member
2008-Dec-1 7:06 pm
Re: uTP is GOOD!They have supposedly built a reliable transport mechanism on top of UDP. » forum.utorrent.com/viewt ··· id=49813I don't understand what he means when he says "This UDP-based reliable transport is designed to minimize latency, but still maximize bandwidth when the latency is not excessive. We use this for communication between peers instead of TCP, if both sides support it." In addition, we use information from this transport, if active, to control the transfer rate of TCP connections.So, is it using uTP for client control, but data transfer is still sent via standard TCP? Or they are using uTP for all BT communication, but they are controlling the entire transmit rate of the TCP/IP stack? I'm not clear and I'd have to see more information. | |
| | | | funchordsHello MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA |
Re: uTP is GOOD!said by Matt3:I don't understand what he means when he says "This UDP-based reliable transport is designed to minimize latency, but still maximize bandwidth when the latency is not excessive. We use this for communication between peers instead of TCP, if both sides support it." In addition, we use information from this transport, if active, to control the transfer rate of TCP connections.So, is it using uTP for client control, but data transfer is still sent via standard TCP? Or they are using uTP for all BT communication, but they are controlling the entire transmit rate of the TCP/IP stack? I'm not clear and I'd have to see more information. Although it's not my paragraph, I'll say it a little clearer. Here's how I read it. "This UDP-based reliable transport is designed to minimize latency, but still maximize bandwidth when the latency is not excessive. We will now use uTP for communication between peers instead of TCP, if both sides support it. If both sides do not support it, we still use information gained from the uTP transport, if active, to also control the transfer rate of standard TCP-based connections."So, for Alpha-version to Alpha-version peer connections, file data and mesh overhead happens over UDP. Between Alpha-version to legacy peers, TCP will be used as it always was and UDP will be used as it always was. The legacy TCP connections will still benefit from the network condition information learned from the uTP connections, allowing uTorrent to dynamically raise and lower their throttles as conditions indicate. | |
| | | | | Matt3All noise, no signal. Premium Member join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC |
Matt3
Premium Member
2008-Dec-1 8:47 pm
Re: uTP is GOOD!said by funchords:said by Matt3:I don't understand what he means when he says "This UDP-based reliable transport is designed to minimize latency, but still maximize bandwidth when the latency is not excessive. We use this for communication between peers instead of TCP, if both sides support it." In addition, we use information from this transport, if active, to control the transfer rate of TCP connections.So, is it using uTP for client control, but data transfer is still sent via standard TCP? Or they are using uTP for all BT communication, but they are controlling the entire transmit rate of the TCP/IP stack? I'm not clear and I'd have to see more information. Although it's not my paragraph, I'll say it a little clearer. Here's how I read it. "This UDP-based reliable transport is designed to minimize latency, but still maximize bandwidth when the latency is not excessive. We will now use uTP for communication between peers instead of TCP, if both sides support it. If both sides do not support it, we still use information gained from the uTP transport, if active, to also control the transfer rate of standard TCP-based connections."So, for Alpha-version to Alpha-version peer connections, file data and mesh overhead happens over UDP. Between Alpha-version to legacy peers, TCP will be used as it always was and UDP will be used as it always was. The legacy TCP connections will still benefit from the network condition information learned from the uTP connections, allowing uTorrent to dynamically raise and lower their throttles as conditions indicate. How is that going to benefit networks? It can't be a reliable transport without some sort of acknowledgment. So I'm not sure what the switch to TCP would do to allievate current issues. Can you elaborate a bit on that? | |
| | | | | | funchordsHello MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA 2 edits |
Re: uTP is GOOD!said by Matt3:How is that going to benefit networks? It can't be a reliable transport without some sort of acknowledgment. So I'm not sure what the switch to TCP would do to allievate current issues. Can you elaborate a bit on that? You mean the switch away from TCP, I think. I don't know what method they've chosen, but it's possible that they're using the typical 16K block request boundary and after a series of successes, perhaps pipelining a series of 16K requests. Not receiving a piece is no big shakes, you can always ask again or ask another peer. But, given that there is no error-testing until the piece is done (some torrent piece sizes go as big as 2MB or 4MB), I kinda doubt this was the tactic. So what they've probably done is to reproduce part or all of TCP's integrity checking in their UDP implementation. Either way, a miss is a miss and a potential sign of congestion. So they can, at least, use the fact that a requested block never arrived as a sign -- but it gets even better. Because they're using UDP, the program itself can measure loss and latency and respond directly to congestion -- unlike TCP where the supervision is delegated to the network stack which responds to congestion -- any program using it can only infer what's going on. | |
| | | | | | | Matt3All noise, no signal. Premium Member join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC |
Matt3
Premium Member
2008-Dec-1 9:05 pm
Re: uTP is GOOD!I did mean switch to UDP.
I didn't consider using an unreliable delivery and then just doing a hash check sort of like they do now to verify the file and all the required parts are there.
I'm just not sure I buy into their "It'll make network management easier" bit, but I guess we'll see. | |
| | | | | | | | funchordsHello MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA |
Re: uTP is GOOD!said by Matt3:I'm just not sure I buy into their "It'll make network management easier" bit, but I guess we'll see. It makes it harder on the app, but a goal of uTP is to get rid of the problem where you can't surf, stream, or VOIP if you're torrenting unless you cut your upload speed so far back that you can't possibly overrun your broadband modem. The clues for overrunning the modem are the same clues as overrunning any choking point in network. Since using uTP will give them direct view to loss and latency (unlike TCP, where they don't know if a retransmit was required). uTorrent can figure out quickly if it's a particular path that's congested or a common point (all paths), and react accordingly. | |
| | | | | | | | | Matt3All noise, no signal. Premium Member join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC |
Matt3
Premium Member
2008-Dec-2 9:48 am
Re: uTP is GOOD!How can they not know if a re-transmit was required when using TCP? TCP uses acknowledgments after every packet sent or received, so if a packet was lost, the protocol stack would know immediately. UDP doesn't require acknowledgments, so the protocol stack has no way of knowing if video was lost and no way to know if a retransmission is required. This is evidenced by warping players in an online video game, or stuttering audio/video in online streaming media. It's an unreliable (or unguaranteed) delivery mechanism, whereas TCP is reliable (or guaranteed). So again, I don't see how simply switching to UDP doesn't anything but make the situation worse by requiring a torrent to have to send MORE data packets because once they overload the user's upstream and start dropping packets in favor of other traffic, all that data has to be re-sent. » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us ··· _and_UDP | |
| | | | | | | | | | funchordsHello MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA 2 edits |
Re: uTP is GOOD!said by Matt3:How can they not know if a re-transmit was required when using TCP? TCP uses acknowledgments after every packet sent or received, so if a packet was lost, the protocol stack would know immediately. Because TCP users (the programs) access TCP through a sockets interface. Basically the program opens a socket to an address and a port and sends/recvs data to it. All the details about whether or not a TCP retransmission is needed or a checksum fails is is left up to the network stack. As long as the socket hasn't terminated, it's working. (The API can advise if a send function returns before all the data was queued, and the programmer has to deal with that by sending the rest of the data, so there are possible clues here for reactive processing, but BitTorrent already reactively avoids congested paths so it's not much help). said by Matt3:UDP doesn't require acknowledgments, so the protocol stack has no way of knowing if video was lost and no way to know if a retransmission is required. It has no way of knowing if you (the programmer) don't build in some kind of ACK/NAK or other scheme. And that's the thing -- with TCP, you don't have to do that yourself, TCP does it for you. With UDP, you have to handle this yourself. But taking it out of the BitTorrent topic for a moment, why do you need TCP for something like viewing YouTube videos? If the network between YouTube and the viewer drops a packet, is it better to stop the flow and re-request the lost packet or is it better to skip the missed data and go on? I think it would be better to skip the missed data. TCP won't allow me to program that way, but UDP will. Back to BitTorrent... So again, I don't see how simply switching to UDP doesn't anything but make the situation worse by requiring a torrent to have to send MORE data packets because once they overload the user's upstream and start dropping packets in favor of other traffic, all that data has to be re-sent. First, it's not simply switching to UDP, they've also built in TCP-style acknowledgements and congestion control as well as preemptive control. See this message from the developer: » www.ietf.org/mail-archiv ··· 076.html --- the presentation slides are » www3.ietf.org/proceeding ··· at-4.pdf but they're probably cryptic without being in the room or knowing the 6-months worth of discussion that preceded it. Second, overloading the user's upstream is the anti-goal or the thing to avoid (it's the Status Quo). uTP won't drop packets in favor of other traffic, it will hold it and avoid adding it to the outgoing queue. Robb | |
|
1 edit
1 recommendation |
You called it yourself, KarlRemember the headline on your piece on UTP, Karl? "New UDP uTorrent Takes Aim At Throttling."
The folks at BitTorrent, Inc., may very well have nothing but good intentions, but as soon as you make Internet congestion control a user-tunable option, all hell is going to break loose. The infrastructure is not prepared for this.
Richard Bennett | |
| | ••••••••• | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2008-Dec-1 3:24 pm
UDP for uTorrent has one REAL purpose - avoid ISP throttlingAll this talk about the motives of those who have designed in UDP file transfers for P2P apps being altruistic is pure BS. UDP is being made the default protocol for 1 reason - to bypass those ISPs that are still throttling P2P traffic. Any other reason being given is PR activity to put a friendly face on the continued attempts to facilitate copyright infringement. | |
| | ••••••••••••••••• | maartenaElmo Premium Member join:2002-05-10 Orange, CA |
maartena
Premium Member
2008-Dec-1 3:39 pm
Pirates will find a way.......and so it goes to show that pirates will always find a way to circumvent technology. Since UDP is apperantly a lot more difficult to throttle, one can circumvent the current (and very expensive) throttling mechanisms in place.
The downside is that it will make ISP's more likely to implement caps. If they can't keep torrent traffic down ONLY, they will simply start capping ALL the traffic.
Quite frankly, for the few times I DO use a torrent app, i'd much rather be throttled then having my entire connection capped at a certain amount of data, because I use my connection for a LOT more. | |
| | ••• | |
TheSHAD0W
Anon
2008-Dec-1 3:42 pm
uncorrect terminologyYour statement that "UDP BitTorrent Will Destroy The Interwebs!" is uncorrect. BT doesn't directly threaten the interwebs; it is instead likely to melt the INTERTUBES. Please be more careful with your titling in the future. | |
| |
anon1
Anon
2008-Dec-1 3:48 pm
The RegisterHaha, yeah, totally reliable source.. | |
| | Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDIS Premium Member join:2000-09-05 Dallas, TX |
Re: The Register"Biting the hand that feeds IT Network Neutrality." | |
| | | |
Re: The RegisterI take your Register and substitute my own | |
|
1 recommendation |
From the article:How about, "we wait to attack the potential problem with data and evidence rather than suppose and conjecture our way into the unforgiving embrace of network non-neutrality." ? | |
| Pv8man join:2008-07-24 Hammond, IN |
Pv8man
Member
2008-Dec-1 4:51 pm
Opinion bought and paid for by the telcos and **AA'sI wonder how much Richard Bennett is getting paid to spread his faulty and roughly improvised opinion to as many people as he can. I'm sure "con"-cast has their PR's hands on this.
For those of you who argue that the throttling is absolutely necessary and that switching to UDP(bypass throttle) would be the death of the internet? (Assuming ISP's let it happen that way by never wanting to upgrade capacity)
I would have to respond with the statement that streaming video is increasingly becoming the majority of bandwidth consumption.
Do you think it would be fair and legal to throttle you tube videos as well? | |
| | 1 edit |
Re: Opinion bought and paid for by the telcos and **AA'sActually no, the folks at Comcast tell me they're completely OK with the UTP scheme, which they see as a means of being more polite in the face of congestion than TCP is. They're actually its biggest defender, apart from BT, Inc.
So no, this isn't a shill thing. It was actually a reaction to Karl's article on UDP being a means of escaping throttling in Canada. Anyone who buys that is probably going to be disappointed.
Richard Bennett | |
|
1 recommendation |
WhatsTehBeef
Anon
2008-Dec-1 5:02 pm
Shaping packetsMy shaper just classifies packets by size and then prioritizes them by size.
There are three kinds of packets on a network, little bitty packets, middle size packets, and great big packets.
About 45 percent of packets are less than 400 bytes and about 45 percent of packets are bigger than 1000 bytes. The other 10 percent are middle sized packets.
Programmers who are worried about latency form little bitty packets and use UDP. Programmers who are worried about reliable bulk data transfer use TCP and great big packets.
VoIP, Gamers, etc. UDP and little bitty. Web, Streaming Audio, Streaming Video, TCP and great big. Torrents... great big packets.
Classify your packets by size. Stick them in three queues and encourage the little packets to go first and the big packets to go last. If something gets dropped on the floor, it should always be a big packet.
It don't get any more efficient than that. | |
| | •••• | |
1 recommendation |
Richard's article actually understates the problemI see that we have some ISP bashers here. Have any of you ever thought that maybe -- just maybe -- ISPs manage traffic and restrict P2P because it is necessary to provide reasonable quality of service to their customers?
The fact is that uTP was explicitly stated -- by its developers -- to be an end run around providers' reasonable network management practices, and Richard is absolutely correct when he notes that it could cause severe network problems.
In fact, Richard understates the case, because he neglects to mention one extremely important point. By switching to UDP, BitTorrent will not only compete with VoIP and some video and audio applications but also with DNS.
This could well be catastrophic, because DNS (domain name service), as ISPs know all too well, is a "critical path" protocol in virtually every application. If DNS is slow, EVERYTHING ELSE that users do will also be slow. Remember, most network applications, including Web browsers, have to stop and wait -- unable to do anything else -- until they resolve one or more domain names. So, they'll hang frustratingly if DNS packets are dropped due to congestion. And what underlying transport protocol does DNS use by default? UDP. (It can use TCP as well; however, it does so if, and only if, it has a lot of data to transfer. And TCP, due to its complex handshaking and "slow start" flow control, is much less efficient and much slower.)
So, what we're talking about is not just congestion but sand in the gears of the entire Internet.
Also, because uTP does not conform to any explicit congestion management protocol that could detect congestion BEFORE packets are dropped, the only way it would be able to detect congestion in the network would be after packets were dropped. Which means that by the time it did anything -- IF it did anything -- to mitigate the congestion it caused, it already would have damaged the network.
Finally, do you actually trust downloaders -- who already, in the vast majority of cases, are brazenly engaging in illegal activity -- to be courteous to anyone? There's no honor among thieves, folks. | |
| | Noah VailOh God please no. Premium Member join:2004-12-10 SouthAmerica |
Re: Richard's article actually understates the problemsaid by SuperWISP:This could well be catastrophic, because DNS (domain name service), as ISPs know all too well, is a "critical path" protocol in virtually every application. If DNS is slow, EVERYTHING ELSE that users do will also be slow. Of course you could prioritize port 53 traffic, so that it wasn't so slow. Since you're already using tcp for zone transfers anyway, why not use tcp to carry all your dns traffic? Or you could just raise the priority of udp packets as the need arises. NV | |
| | Pv8man join:2008-07-24 Hammond, IN |
to SuperWISP
Maybe so, but at least we the people have a little leverage against the distribution discrimination. | |
|
Ikyuao join:2007-02-26 Wichita, KS |
Ikyuao
Member
2008-Dec-1 7:08 pm
TCP and UDPTCP should be for data transfer and just use Linux flexible firewall to blocking TCP RST packets and UDP should be for gaming online. It's very simple. | |
| Its a SecretPlease speak into the microphone Premium Member join:2008-02-23 Da wet coast |
OMG!SMD (software of mass destruction)! Stop it now before we all die! | |
| | Ikyuao join:2007-02-26 Wichita, KS |
Ikyuao
Member
2008-Dec-1 8:25 pm
Re: OMG! Nuke bomb |
uTorrent should stop their doing with UDP before they starting launch their many nuclear warhead packets of UDP attacks to destroy internet. | |
|
|
Caps and throttling.I'm rather against CAPs and Throttling. If you're buying a service that provides with a maximum amout of bandwidth per month, you should be able to use it as you see fit. I think its really bad they cap you.. then throttle your connection, so good on Utorrent for working on ways around it.
ISP's seem to be doing a race to the bottom, avoiding infrastructure upgrades wherever/whenever possible.
I'll be glad when wireless internet evolves into a usuable form of broadband, and makes it easier for competition to enter the market. | |
| | Ikyuao join:2007-02-26 Wichita, KS 1 edit |
Ikyuao
Member
2008-Dec-1 11:13 pm
Re: Caps and throttling.I'd tested my Linux flexible firewall with TCP RST packet filtered and I sees whoops 1 MB/s to 1.5 MB/s of opensuse distro iso downloading over bittorrent of TCP that is perfectly. I'm implemented to use flexible iptables firewall to filtering TCP RST out perfect in that way. | |
|
|
Visitor99899
Anon
2008-Dec-1 10:43 pm
ISP BashingThere are a lot of accusations flying around here.
For those whiners that are complaining, do the math. It is unrealistic to think that for $50 per month, you can use the whole pipe all the time. I don't care whether it is ADSL, a cable modem or wireless, that is simply not realistic.
On the other hand, if you purchase business grade connectivity, then you can use it as much as you want, but then you are talking about T-1's at $350 - 400 per month or business grade wireless at $200 to 500 per month.
There is a saying in the racing industry. "speed costs money, how fast can you afford to go?"
The Internet is not free, those big routers can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. When people are complaining about not getting unlimited downloads on a $50 per month connection, you should really consider what you are getting and the costs of getting it from here to there.
Most ISP's would love to be able to sell you an unlimited 100 meg connection to the Internet for $50 per month. The business model doesn't work so well when they have to pay $25,000 *per month* for a 45 meg connection. | |
| | •••••• | premio join:2002-02-17 Sunnyvale, CA |
premio
Member
2008-Dec-2 8:19 pm
RIAA out of luck?Can this be a big benefit to neutering anti-privacy laws?
With UDP being a connectionless state, how can anyone prove the source of the illegal material? or for that matter that the receiver actually requested it? | |
| |
intelceleron11
Anon
2008-Dec-2 8:58 pm
Here's what really peeves meWhat I don't understand is if they SAY the service is 5mbit, why don't I GET 5mbit? See, if they have trouble, what they should do, fairly, isn't cap everything - that's misleading. What they should do is dial down their service. Instead of me paying for 5mbit, I should pay for 3mbit. It solves all the problems. The issue is that Bell oversold themselves - nevertheless SOLD, and now they're in a hole, a deep one. Blaming bittorrent for the end of the internet isn't going to solve anything, in fact blame youtube for the end of the internet - there's no easy download mechanism for things you watch on there. With bittorrent you only download once, not 50 times. Protocols don't matter, put the blame where it belongs - on ISP's for their negligence and greed. | |
| | |
Re: Here's what really peeves meBecause the concept of over-subscription exists in almost every business and infrastructure. Combined with the powerful marketing engines that these companies have advertising a 3mbps speed HONESTLY doesn't compete against a oversubscribed 10mbps advertisement. Unfortunately an ad campaign that says we're slower but better! doesn't get the phones to ring. and "It's small but it's fierce" only works at bars.
Ofcourse nobody on this forum would ever fall victim to advertised claims in the race for internet subscribers. It's all about who can get more customers to call and ask about a service and then try to sell them.
And again as it's been said time and time again consumer based networks are based on over-subscription and erratic usage with moderate usage patterns that rise and fall through the hours of the day. At the same time customers using torrents to transfer a video, program, or anything isp's wouldn't care. Customers downloading a movie from the newsgroups isp's wouldn't care and neither would the network at large. The problem is simple torrent programs and others continue to transmit data long after the user has left their computer. The problem is the guy who uses a newgroup grabber program to suck the binaries out of newsgroups 24hours a day to store EVERYTHING and then delete the items that he doesn't want. And then you get torrent sites that make "who shares more" a competition encouraging people to leave that program running uploading more data. The networks simply weren't built to support that. There is a reason that almost every ISP had a no servers clause in their terms of service. Because the networks were never built to maintain a 24hour a day onslaught and a customer who runs a web-server potentially creates that scenario. So what is the difference between a 'web-server' and a torrent client that's simply seeding 24hours a day? | |
|
El QuintronCancel Culture Ambassador Premium Member join:2008-04-28 Tronna |
FUD for the massesJust a quick FYI, I'm busy reading the comments on the actual Richard Bennett article and for the most part I think it's a whole lot of FUD
Charge by the bandwith and get over it.
My ISP (although Generous) charges by the bandwith and everybody seems happy. | |
|
| |
|
|