Re: BitTorrent (Was: Re: [Isms] ISMS charter broken- onus should be on WG to fix it)

Iljitsch van Beijnum <> Thu, 15 September 2005 23:51 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EG3W1-0007wL-Ud; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:51:41 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EG3Vz-0007wB-1q for; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:51:39 -0400
Received: from (ietf-mx []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA19274 for <>; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:51:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EG3as-0002gV-Tw for; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:56:43 -0400
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j8FNp7Eq046255 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 16 Sep 2005 01:51:08 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <20050913204555.GA14153@boskop.local> <> <> <> <> <> <> <p062309bdbf4e8f2a8454@[]> <> <p062309dfbf4f8ffb57d6@[]> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v734)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 01:51:21 +0200
To: Michael Thomas <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.734)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IETF Discussion <>
Subject: Re: BitTorrent (Was: Re: [Isms] ISMS charter broken- onus should be on WG to fix it)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

On 16-sep-2005, at 1:00, Michael Thomas wrote:

>   I'm not sure; maybe it's really a mutual non-admiration
>   society, and everybody's happy? But it's an elephant
>   insofar as it's pretty darn big trafficwise, and the
>   fact that ietf doesn't seem concerned?

Why should the IETF be concerned about traffic?

Now of course that doesn't mean our amateur protocol designers get it  
right every time... For instance, when you become a Gnutella  
"ultrapeer" you'll very likely create some nasty congestion in the  
outgoing direction of your ADSL or cable connection because when you  
receive one request, the program wakes up and sends out copies of  
that request over several dozen TCP sessions at the same time, which  
will invariably overload the buffers at some point between the host  
and the DSL/cable connection.

> we're layering
>   more and more stuff onto the net too -- like voip -- that
>   are pretty sensitive to average expectations (I'm thinking
>   about things like Vonage, not managed services). Is that
>   a danger for the overall internet architecture?

Anyone who thinks he or she is going to meet real time constraints  
over a random path across the internet that spans multiple ASes has  
more problems than the IETF can possibly fix.

And no, I don't think it's reasonable to restrict p2p bulk data  
transfer to accommodate voice over the public internet.

(Maybe at some point people from Apple would like to share the  
results of them setting a DSCP code point / type of service in the IP  
header of voice packets.)

Ietf mailing list