From fluffy@cisco.com Wed Feb 25 11:32:14 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2pi@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2pi@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDF703A6A3F for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:32:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.625 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.625 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZDB92pkX618U for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:32:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9466D3A6923 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:32:13 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,266,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="135279693" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Feb 2009 19:31:56 +0000 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n1PJVup0030194 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:31:56 -0800 Received: from [192.168.4.177] (rcdn-fluffy-8711.cisco.com [10.99.9.18]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1PJVt8A009122 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:31:56 GMT Message-Id: From: Cullen Jennings To: p2pi@ietf.org Impp: xmpp:cullenfluffyjennings@jabber.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:31:55 -0700 References: <20090224003202.B8AC13A6AEA@core3.amsl.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1606; t=1235590316; x=1236454316; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; z=From:=20Cullen=20Jennings=20 |Subject:=20Fwd=3A=20Last=20Call=3A=20draft-p2pi-cooper-wor kshop-report=20(Report=20from=20the=20=20IETF=20workshop=20o n=20P2P=20Infrastructure,=20May=2028,=202008)=20to=20=20Info rmational=20RFC=20 |Sender:=20; bh=847rll5QgRKVuzqS03xUJGbm9SgxLrn2uqoYXvn4xD8=; b=XwL7DeoxyVBQUwk1K3wivxL4pAySNHFNXzKRRh1L/RCN/JHI28GnGMTkvq 0DC3uSs6zJqB/TzVxrRBmujz8GUhOoeLhUZKKcoRQFBts6LtdMON3z3h2qua gEF0Y6H9dZ; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=fluffy@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: [p2pi] Fwd: Last Call: draft-p2pi-cooper-workshop-report (Report from the IETF workshop on P2P Infrastructure, May 28, 2008) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: p2pi@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: P2P Infrastructure Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:32:14 -0000 Sorry if people get multiple copies of this but I wanted to get any comments people had on this draft as part of the LC. Thanks, Cullen Begin forwarded message: > From: The IESG > Date: February 23, 2009 5:32:02 PM MST (CA) > To: IETF-Announce > Subject: Last Call: draft-p2pi-cooper-workshop-report (Report from > the IETF workshop on P2P Infrastructure, May 28, 2008) to > Informational RFC > Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org > > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to > consider > the following document: > > - 'Report from the IETF workshop on P2P Infrastructure, May 28, 2008 ' > as an Informational RFC > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to > the > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2009-03-23. Exceptionally, > comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please > retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > The file can be obtained via > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-p2pi-cooper-workshop-report-01.txt > > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=17833&rfc_flag=0 > > The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: > > > > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce From enrico.marocco@telecomitalia.it Thu Feb 26 07:50:49 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2pi@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2pi@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07E143A6BF0; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 07:50:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.719 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XMR90d0uStwz; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 07:50:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from GRFEDG702BA020.telecomitalia.it (grfedg702ba020.telecomitalia.it [156.54.233.201]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5602F3A6BEE; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 07:50:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from GRFHUB701BA020.griffon.local (10.188.101.111) by GRFEDG702BA020.telecomitalia.it (10.188.45.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.336.0; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:50:03 +0100 Received: from [10.229.8.148] (10.229.8.148) by smtp.telecomitalia.it (10.188.101.114) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.336.0; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:50:04 +0100 Message-ID: <49A6BA31.7060409@telecomitalia.it> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:50:09 +0100 From: Enrico Marocco User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090103) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "p2prg@irtf.org" X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms020401040508080808030109" Cc: p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com, "p2pi@ietf.org" , "alto@ietf.org" Subject: [p2pi] Mythbustering P2P traffic localization X-BeenThere: p2pi@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: P2P Infrastructure Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:50:49 -0000 --------------ms020401040508080808030109 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello folks, we have just submitted a draft that tries to summarize many discussions about possible effects (and side-effects) of P2P traffic localization: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-marocco-p2prg-mythbustering-00.txt The document is very early and the conclusions may be controversial; any comments, feedback and contributions to improve it will be greatly appreciated. Apologies for cross-posting, I'm sending this email to all the lists where some of the discussions happened; please consider addressing any follow-up to p2prg only. -- Ciao, Enrico --------------ms020401040508080808030109 Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIJwTCC AzswggKkoAMCAQICEB5MAA0NQwlT3ufR7UBbG7gwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwYjELMAkGA1UE BhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMT I1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBMB4XDTA4MDMyOTEzMDExOVoX DTA5MDMyOTEzMDExOVowejEfMB0GA1UEAxMWVGhhd3RlIEZyZWVtYWlsIE1lbWJlcjEuMCwG CSqGSIb3DQEJARYfZW5yaWNvLm1hcm9jY29AdGVsZWNvbWl0YWxpYS5pdDEnMCUGCSqGSIb3 DQEJARYYZW5yaWNvLm1hcm9jY29AZ21haWwuY29tMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8A MIIBCgKCAQEAscB8QkU/epro6Z59GpYTko0wKy8RkilXiec5xWsN2DuaGvHSz4IeWJlPiP7z UnHHF5c/51wH6PzFyhq+OZjTP50NZLyh5VBfOuyjf6Hjh1LTYcF1WnggMZoaH/ktb6dMCHvO oYCzR0J1ZtfBGmz7XuHUDiuTnbo0A16F685nBAkBh4HYLIQxqyORJ+snLSmiA7xLX1L5Gy+t W950fMs9Z3SpSQM37AMSS2S2ooZB9cotvJAgmauWzclaS0SWzKMeHg3sjdI2tKxuf3eBb0v1 +XnOjz1YLyzmJjSrDwdwUarSjx8EhD9kBHdYSWxBCEY78X26J2y3N61DoZHYwYyNowIDAQAB o1YwVDBEBgNVHREEPTA7gR9lbnJpY28ubWFyb2Njb0B0ZWxlY29taXRhbGlhLml0gRhlbnJp Y28ubWFyb2Njb0BnbWFpbC5jb20wDAYDVR0TAQH/BAIwADANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOBgQCn ZkvJXyvhUJf6wectMCJ83wWcBrWW6GbDZYzCwErd8X78ZIxGWKphMQ/iAAb0tuW+VdrAZpih a7yRIE0DMkQiKNR9v1dszgIEVO+7ebe4l02T537gZAeDWCgiCKwRRemFHM1G7lWtKt6tHrfe +BCmVslPGk2aphSk2KBAFbgCiTCCAzswggKkoAMCAQICEB5MAA0NQwlT3ufR7UBbG7gwDQYJ KoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5n IChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5n IENBMB4XDTA4MDMyOTEzMDExOVoXDTA5MDMyOTEzMDExOVowejEfMB0GA1UEAxMWVGhhd3Rl IEZyZWVtYWlsIE1lbWJlcjEuMCwGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYfZW5yaWNvLm1hcm9jY29AdGVsZWNv bWl0YWxpYS5pdDEnMCUGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYYZW5yaWNvLm1hcm9jY29AZ21haWwuY29tMIIB IjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAscB8QkU/epro6Z59GpYTko0wKy8RkilX iec5xWsN2DuaGvHSz4IeWJlPiP7zUnHHF5c/51wH6PzFyhq+OZjTP50NZLyh5VBfOuyjf6Hj h1LTYcF1WnggMZoaH/ktb6dMCHvOoYCzR0J1ZtfBGmz7XuHUDiuTnbo0A16F685nBAkBh4HY LIQxqyORJ+snLSmiA7xLX1L5Gy+tW950fMs9Z3SpSQM37AMSS2S2ooZB9cotvJAgmauWzcla S0SWzKMeHg3sjdI2tKxuf3eBb0v1+XnOjz1YLyzmJjSrDwdwUarSjx8EhD9kBHdYSWxBCEY7 8X26J2y3N61DoZHYwYyNowIDAQABo1YwVDBEBgNVHREEPTA7gR9lbnJpY28ubWFyb2Njb0B0 ZWxlY29taXRhbGlhLml0gRhlbnJpY28ubWFyb2Njb0BnbWFpbC5jb20wDAYDVR0TAQH/BAIw ADANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOBgQCnZkvJXyvhUJf6wectMCJ83wWcBrWW6GbDZYzCwErd8X78 ZIxGWKphMQ/iAAb0tuW+VdrAZpiha7yRIE0DMkQiKNR9v1dszgIEVO+7ebe4l02T537gZAeD WCgiCKwRRemFHM1G7lWtKt6tHrfe+BCmVslPGk2aphSk2KBAFbgCiTCCAz8wggKooAMCAQIC AQ0wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwgdExCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMRUwEwYDVQQIEwxXZXN0ZXJuIENh cGUxEjAQBgNVBAcTCUNhcGUgVG93bjEaMBgGA1UEChMRVGhhd3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcxKDAm BgNVBAsTH0NlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gU2VydmljZXMgRGl2aXNpb24xJDAiBgNVBAMTG1RoYXd0 ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBDQTErMCkGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYccGVyc29uYWwtZnJlZW1h aWxAdGhhd3RlLmNvbTAeFw0wMzA3MTcwMDAwMDBaFw0xMzA3MTYyMzU5NTlaMGIxCzAJBgNV BAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQD EyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQTCBnzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEF AAOBjQAwgYkCgYEAxKY8VXNV+065yplaHmjAdQRwnd/p/6Me7L3N9VvyGna9fww6YfK/Uc4B 1OVQCjDXAmNaLIkVcI7dyfArhVqqP3FWy688Cwfn8R+RNiQqE88r1fOCdz0Dviv+uxg+B79A gAJk16emu59l0cUqVIUPSAR/p7bRPGEEQB5kGXJgt/sCAwEAAaOBlDCBkTASBgNVHRMBAf8E CDAGAQH/AgEAMEMGA1UdHwQ8MDowOKA2oDSGMmh0dHA6Ly9jcmwudGhhd3RlLmNvbS9UaGF3 dGVQZXJzb25hbEZyZWVtYWlsQ0EuY3JsMAsGA1UdDwQEAwIBBjApBgNVHREEIjAgpB4wHDEa MBgGA1UEAxMRUHJpdmF0ZUxhYmVsMi0xMzgwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADgYEASIzRUIPqCy7M DaNmrGcPf6+svsIXoUOWlJ1/TCG4+DYfqi2fNi/A9BxQIJNwPP2t4WFiw9k6GX6EsZkbAMUa C4J0niVQlGLH2ydxVyWN3amcOY6MIE9lX5Xa9/eH1sYITq726jTlEBpbNU1341YheILcIRk1 3iSx0x1G/11fZU8xggNxMIIDbQIBATB2MGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxUaGF3 dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJl ZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQQIQHkwADQ1DCVPe59HtQFsbuDAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIIB0DAYBgkq hkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0wOTAyMjYxNTUwMDlaMCMG CSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBTRrxoZiYvCmfrDxoVP+5bnqAtLAjBfBgkqhkiG9w0BCQ8xUjBQMAsG CWCGSAFlAwQBAjAKBggqhkiG9w0DBzAOBggqhkiG9w0DAgICAIAwDQYIKoZIhvcNAwICAUAw BwYFKw4DAgcwDQYIKoZIhvcNAwICASgwgYUGCSsGAQQBgjcQBDF4MHYwYjELMAkGA1UEBhMC WkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1Ro YXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBAhAeTAANDUMJU97n0e1AWxu4MIGH BgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzF4oHYwYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25z dWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJ c3N1aW5nIENBAhAeTAANDUMJU97n0e1AWxu4MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAH2QCuXrDH4i MDTvgTicEc4SjAcG7rIbVSCX37LNYe8BwVpa8+bnjRfIGsVeB5BJQaRVaZL4hWUueg1I1du+ 8c+c7QGZ5hfSp/+6o6Maykfxos8losj+IL370smCyt4yg1JcQk73Ua38q2N7GSlONZQOa6sq wNBcW/hBrxd4NTnLUxbTaKNpF1SDf5B2JeeIs1Xjj9z2RU3th2LyxgV3k9uqAZ7F5dOjrVOY bzSnhHu9V6ggA2G1rQoFF63o7f7VkctGtwS1PL8wLh2tED0lNp/R2uy30KdGRQDRkJ3tueS5 hjvEizsfeDrTpdsXqw54WjfU5WGo32xS8nRaFN/+q5YAAAAAAAA= --------------ms020401040508080808030109-- From laird@pando.com Thu Feb 26 08:46:17 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2pi@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2pi@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8026428C2F1; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 08:46:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hIA9c3Uk-TLx; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 08:46:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from dkny.pando.com (dkny.pando.com [67.99.55.163]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45CEB28C293; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 08:46:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by dkny.pando.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D66FE10BD4; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:46:31 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at Received: from dkny.pando.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dkny.pando.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FJhd8ZUv6qOv; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:46:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from dkny.pando.com (dkny.pando.com [10.10.60.11]) by dkny.pando.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C58EE10AF7; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:46:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:46:18 -0500 (EST) From: Laird Popkin To: Enrico Marocco Message-ID: <1630117556.83301235666778540.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> In-Reply-To: <41520057.83281235666714984.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.10.20.77] Cc: p2prg@irtf.org, p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com, p2pi@ietf.org, alto@ietf.org Subject: Re: [p2pi] Mythbustering P2P traffic localization X-BeenThere: p2pi@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: P2P Infrastructure Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:46:17 -0000 Nice write-up. I would shorten the definition of 2.5 "Surplus Mode" to "The status of a swarm where the upload capacity exceeds the download demand". You could also call this "well seeded". I would change 2.6's title to "Paid Transit" to be a bit more explicit about the distinction between it and peering ("direct connections"). In 4.1.1, I wouldn't conclude from one test that "the collected data also indicate that fine-grained localization is less effective in improving download performance compared to lower levels of localization", because additional "tuning" of the fine-grained guidance could well produce superior results to course grained guidance. Also related to this, I would point out that it's important that applications not use network guidance as the sole determinant of p2p data exchange. This is important in order to prevent the p2p network from fragmenting (e.g. each ISP is an 'island' without inter-ISP connections) and to minimize the negative impact in some cases (e.g. all local users have very limited uplink capacity). In 4.2, "imposing locality when only a small set of local peers are available" I would suggest that network guidance should never be used to exclude available peers, but simply to prioritize the order of connection/data exchange. If a swarm has only 10 peers, with 1 local, the p2p network should connect first to the local peer, but then proceed to connect to all available peers. To elaborate on 5.1, what we observed is that while the total uplink utilization did not change, there was a significant reduction in the uplink data sent off-net, balanced by a matching increase in uplink data sent on-net. For example, Comcast customers served more data to each other, and less data to the rest of the internet. Related to 6, note that guidance can be applied to inter-ISP connections, so that ISPs could use the guidance to shift traffic away from paid transit links towards peering links (for example). Because p2p traffic (between consumer ISPs) tends to be balanced (i.e. once peers connect, they ship data bi-directionally), this should help ISPs balance their peering links. Related to 7, in the last P4P field test we had a wholesale provider and a retail ISP both participate, which raised the question of how the 'overlap' was addressed. We use the rule that the longest IP address prefix match determined the source of the guidance, which resulted in the users within the retail network to receive guidance from the retail ISP's iTracker, and the other users within the wholesale network receive guidance from the wholesale ISP's iTracker. We also demonstrated that the wholesale ISP's iTracker could internalize traffic within the wholesale network in a similar manner to retail ISPs. This was not analyzed from an economic perspective. Also related to 7, if ISPs start providing guidance that manipulates p2p data flow in ways that significantly degrade application performance, it is likely that applications will either stop using the guidance or learn to do so selectively. In 8, I agree that this is an area for continued research. While all of the research on this front has simulated restricted peer inter-connections based on locality, I would suggest that applications would not in practice use locality guidance to limit peer inter-connections - it is important that over time swarms are fully meshed in order to be resilient, which should limit the ability of "bad guidance" to damage the network. That is, while a peer might get "bad" peers first, it should over time discover the rest of the swarm, after which it should function normally (i.e. optimize to utilize the peers with the fastest observed throughput), with the only cost of the bad guidance an initial slow-down. For example, in the P4P field tests, we used P4P guided peer connections first, but with two elements that ensured interconnections: 10% of peer connections remained random, and peer discovery through peer-exchange. - Laird Popkin, CTO, Pando Networks mobile: 646/465-0570 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Enrico Marocco" To: p2prg@irtf.org Cc: p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com, p2pi@ietf.org, alto@ietf.org Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 10:50:09 AM (GMT-0500) America/New_York Subject: [p2pi] Mythbustering P2P traffic localization Hello folks, we have just submitted a draft that tries to summarize many discussions about possible effects (and side-effects) of P2P traffic localization: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-marocco-p2prg-mythbustering-00.txt The document is very early and the conclusions may be controversial; any comments, feedback and contributions to improve it will be greatly appreciated. Apologies for cross-posting, I'm sending this email to all the lists where some of the discussions happened; please consider addressing any follow-up to p2prg only. -- Ciao, Enrico _______________________________________________ p2pi mailing list p2pi@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi From leslie@thinkingcat.com Thu Feb 26 13:50:15 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2pi@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2pi@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C76953A6C09 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:50:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.742 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.742 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.143, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9+ox+aSjrE-y for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:50:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from zeke.ecotroph.net (zeke.ecotroph.net [70.164.19.155]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5F9E3A67EE for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:50:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from beethoven.local ([::ffff:209.183.196.229]) (AUTH: PLAIN leslie, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:50:35 -0500 id 015880B4.49A70EAB.00004C6E Message-ID: <49A70EA3.4040906@thinkingcat.com> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:50:27 -0500 From: Leslie Daigle User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: p2pi@ietf.org References: <20090224003202.B8AC13A6AEA@core3.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [p2pi] Fwd: Last Call: draft-p2pi-cooper-workshop-report (Report from the IETF workshop on P2P Infrastructure, May 28, 2008) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: p2pi@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: P2P Infrastructure Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:50:15 -0000 And, as I said to Cullen out-of-band, insofar as this document presents itself as the report of the workshop, I believe it is important for workshop participants to confirm that it appropriately reflects their contributions/the events of the day. Thanks, Leslie. Cullen Jennings wrote: > > Sorry if people get multiple copies of this but I wanted to get any > comments people had on this draft as part of the LC. > > Thanks, Cullen > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: The IESG >> Date: February 23, 2009 5:32:02 PM MST (CA) >> To: IETF-Announce >> Subject: Last Call: draft-p2pi-cooper-workshop-report (Report from >> the IETF workshop on P2P Infrastructure, May 28, 2008) to >> Informational RFC >> Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org >> >> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider >> the following document: >> >> - 'Report from the IETF workshop on P2P Infrastructure, May 28, 2008 ' >> as an Informational RFC >> >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits >> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the >> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2009-03-23. Exceptionally, >> comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please >> retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >> >> The file can be obtained via >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-p2pi-cooper-workshop-report-01.txt >> >> >> >> IESG discussion can be tracked via >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=17833&rfc_flag=0 >> >> >> The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IETF-Announce mailing list >> IETF-Announce@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > > _______________________________________________ > p2pi mailing list > p2pi@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Reality: Yours to discover." -- ThinkingCat Leslie Daigle leslie@thinkingcat.com ------------------------------------------------------------------- From arnaud.legout@inria.fr Fri Feb 27 02:44:08 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2pi@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2pi@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AD4C3A6A67; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 02:44:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LekC1SnZVcvX; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 02:44:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4674C3A6803; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 02:44:06 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,275,1233529200"; d="scan'208";a="35837197" Received: from cecile.inria.fr (HELO [138.96.250.112]) ([138.96.250.112]) by mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 27 Feb 2009 11:44:26 +0100 Message-ID: <49A7C407.5080106@inria.fr> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:44:23 +0100 From: Arnaud Legout User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Enrico Marocco References: <49A6BA31.7060409@telecomitalia.it> In-Reply-To: <49A6BA31.7060409@telecomitalia.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "p2pi@ietf.org" , p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com, "p2prg@irtf.org" , "alto@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [p2pi] [p2prg] Mythbustering P2P traffic localization X-BeenThere: p2pi@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: P2P Infrastructure Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:44:08 -0000 [Should we limit the cross posting? I believe sending this thread to 4 mailing lists is too much (may be this is because I am subscribed to all four)] Hi, here is some feeback based on what we did in [Le Blond]. section 3 We show that we can achieve much higher savings than 80% of reduction. The direct implication of this result is that you can still achieve significant savings with few peers per ISP (per torrent). section 4 we explain the relation between peers download completion time and network congestion. With large enough network congestion you can significantly improve the peers download completion time. Therefore, it is likely that the different gains shown by field experiments report different level of congestion of the underlying network during the experiments. section 8.1 you write that we did simulations. We did not, we did experiments with real BitTorrent clients. section 8.2 it is not clear what you mean in "as shown in [Le Blond], the right balance of randomness and locality depends on the P2P algorithm". We did not explore several P2P protocols, but only BitTorrent. We show that BT is extremely robust to high locality (as long as there is enough randomness within each ISP). We cannot conclude for any other P2P protocol. "On the other hand, P2P systems not adopting the tit-for-tat approach (e.g. the eDonkey network) should not be damaged by locality-based" It is not clear to me. Peer selection (tit-for-tat like choking algo in BT) is not the only one factor of efficiency, there is also piece diversity. Edonkey/emule also use rarest first (but a less efficient peer selection algorithm). Therefore, as locality adversely impact piece diversity, my bet is that Edonkey/emule will suffer from locality. Regards, Arnaud. Enrico Marocco wrote: > Hello folks, > > we have just submitted a draft that tries to summarize many discussions > about possible effects (and side-effects) of P2P traffic localization: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-marocco-p2prg-mythbustering-00.txt > > The document is very early and the conclusions may be controversial; any > comments, feedback and contributions to improve it will be greatly > appreciated. > > Apologies for cross-posting, I'm sending this email to all the lists > where some of the discussions happened; please consider addressing any > follow-up to p2prg only. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > p2prg mailing list > p2prg@irtf.org > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2prg > -- Arnaud Legout, Ph.D. INRIA Sophia Antipolis - Plančte Phone : 00.33.4.92.38.78.15 2004 route des lucioles - BP 93 Fax : 00.33.4.92.38.79.78 06902 Sophia Antipolis CEDEX E-mail: arnaud.legout@inria.fr FRANCE Web : http://www-sop.inria.fr/planete/Arnaud.Legout/index.html From melodysong@huawei.com Fri Feb 27 23:47:24 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2pi@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2pi@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 887553A698B; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:47:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.547 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.052, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ihRgWNBJs8Ln; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:47:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90E5F3A67E9; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:47:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KFR00F6TMZID4@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 15:47:42 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.33]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KFR00JZZMZI82@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 15:47:42 +0800 (CST) Received: from s64081 ([10.164.12.16]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KFR007CGMZHCR@szxml06-in.huawei.com>; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 15:47:42 +0800 (CST) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 15:47:41 +0800 From: Song Haibin In-reply-to: <49A7C407.5080106@inria.fr> To: 'Arnaud Legout' , 'Enrico Marocco' Message-id: <00c401c99978$d5dd38a0$100ca40a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: AcmYyIk7hQf0Th4lRHmzCaxjFquMEAArP7Kw Cc: p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com, p2pi@ietf.org, p2prg@irtf.org, alto@ietf.org Subject: Re: [p2pi] [p2prg] Mythbustering P2P traffic localization X-BeenThere: p2pi@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: P2P Infrastructure Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 07:47:24 -0000 Hi Arnaud, >section 8.2 >it is not clear what you mean in "as shown in [Le Blond], the right >balance of randomness and > locality depends on the P2P algorithm". We did not explore several P2P >protocols, but only BitTorrent. >We show that BT is extremely robust to high locality (as long as there >is enough randomness within each ISP). >We cannot conclude for any other P2P protocol. I guess if locality will weaken a swarm depends on in which proportion the pieces of the resource the local peers have; and the balance of the cotent pieces distribution among these local peers. >"On the other hand, P2P systems not adopting the tit-for-tat approach > (e.g. the eDonkey network) should not be damaged by locality-based" >It is not clear to me. Peer selection (tit-for-tat like choking algo in >BT) is not the only one factor of efficiency, there is also piece >diversity. >Edonkey/emule also use rarest first (but a less efficient peer selection >algorithm). Therefore, as locality adversely impact >piece diversity, my bet is that Edonkey/emule will suffer from locality. What do you mean with "less efficient" by saying "Edonkey/emule also use rarest first (but a less efficient peer selection algorithm)"? Regards, Song Haibin