[p2pi] Incentives and Deployment Considerations for P2PI Solutions
Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Tue, 27 May 2008 22:14 UTC
Return-Path: <p2pi-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: p2pi-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-p2pi-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA4B73A6910; Tue, 27 May 2008 15:14:23 -0700 (PDT)
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 302253A68DC for <p2pi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2008 15:14:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.678
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.279, BAYES_50=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_53=0.6, 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 Xt6qx4TEVE8n for <p2pi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2008 15:14:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 034933A6910 for <p2pi@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2008 15:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,550,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="29193012"
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 May 2008 15:14:02 -0700
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m4RME2JP015916 for <p2pi@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2008 15:14:02 -0700
Received: from [10.0.129.52] (sjc-vpn4-63.cisco.com [10.21.80.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m4RME1mq012340 for <p2pi@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2008 22:14:01 GMT
Message-Id: <81F82335-60FE-4B4A-91A6-A51A800E093E@cisco.com>
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
To: p2pi@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 18:15:32 -0400
References: <483BD175.7090205@piuha.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=24430; t=1211926442; x=1212790442; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; z=From:=20Cullen=20Jennings=20<fluffy@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Incentives=20and=20Deployment=20Considerations= 20for=20P2PI=20Solutions |Sender:=20; bh=hd0c8uDqfWbDypqUbZYPByUV8i2L5J018y11A8Df9GQ=; b=De6HI8UiF3FaBHgKsK4R5eAG3inEcpdGuJbPz/cnKyYUDLAk0DB4+CI4QR Lr+h3paPSqpcHX8qebFDjSz8eakB5ukFdqdRgXnsWhBG28ifNRMV+k7Y8mVc 5Vpl9HclRZ;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=fluffy@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; );
Subject: [p2pi] Incentives and Deployment Considerations for P2PI Solutions
X-BeenThere: p2pi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: P2P Infrastructure Discussion <p2pi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi>, <mailto:p2pi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/p2pi>
List-Post: <mailto:p2pi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p2pi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi>, <mailto:p2pi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: p2pi-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: p2pi-bounces@ietf.org
One more paper ... Begin forwarded message: > From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> > Date: May 27, 2008 5:16:37 AM EDT > To: p2pi-com@ietf.org, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> > Subject: later position paper submission > > > I wrote this as a part of my preparations for the workshop. > > Jari > > > > > Network Working Group J. > Arkko > Internet-Draft > Ericsson > Intended status: Informational May 27, > 2008 > Expires: November 28, 2008 > > > Incentives and Deployment Considerations for P2PI Solutions > draft-arkko-p2pi-incentives-00 > > Status of this Memo > > By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any > applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware > have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes > aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. > > Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering > Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that > other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- > Drafts. > > Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six > months > and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any > time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference > material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." > > The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at > http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. > > The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. > > This Internet-Draft will expire on November 28, 2008. > > Abstract > > Several papers in this workshop have argued that there is a need to > build new protocol mechanisms to accommodate peer-to-peer traffic in > networks in the most efficient way and with minimal impact to other > traffic. This paper presents an analysis of such solutions from the > point of view of the incentives of the different parties involved in > peer-to-peer traffic. The paper concludes that it is essential to > understand the incentives in order to have a deployable solution. > > > 1. Introduction > > Peer-to-peer (P2P) networking has been cited as the leading consumer > > > > Arkko Expires November 28, 2008 > [Page 1] > > Internet-Draft P2P and Incentives May > 2008 > > > of network bandwidth in networks serving private subscribers. This > is by itself not a problem, as the network providers are in the > business of providing a service to their customers, including the > ones that employ P2P tools. However, the issue is whether P2P > traffic causes undue congestion and reduced level of service for > other customers in the network [I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-relax-fairness]. > > Historically, the Internet service provider market has developed for > interactive services where the bandwidth requirements for each user > vary significantly from over time. This allowed the service > providers to employ statistical multiplexing. At the same time, the > nominal link speeds have been a major factor in marketing Internet > service. But during the last few years, the nature of the traffic > has changed from interactive to more always-on type traffic, for > instance from P2P applications. As a result, statistical > multiplexing is no longer effective, and service providers are > finding that a large sets of users are actually trying to utilize > their full link speed at all times. This is making the service > providers either increase the capacity of their networks to match > the > changing traffic mix and increasingly high broadband service speeds, > or find other ways to deal with the problems. > > It is important to see that these problems are not limited to P2P > tools [P2PI.daigle]. Indeed, not even all P2P applications have > these problems. Some forms of video communication exhibit the same > problems that large file sharing P2P applications do [P2PI.hardie]. > And as the Internet applications evolve, we expect to see new forms > of traffic with these issues. In the remainder of this paper, we > assume any bandwidth-intensive, semi-permanently running application > that may or may not attempt to be friendly with other network usage. > > The fairness problem can present itself in various ways. For > instance, users opening multiple transport sessions may get a > disproportionate share of a congested link. Permanent, high > bandwidth sessions may slow down the ramp-up of short-term, > interactive sessions. Or some users may utilize a transit link far > more than others, resulting in these users gaining a larger share of > the transit costs that the provider has to pay. > > These problems are not just abstract issues. There has been highly > publicized debates about what forms of traffic management are > acceptable for network providers. In reality, network providers > already employ a number of techniques [P2PI.tschofenig]. Solutions > addressing issues in this space have been worked on by network > providers, vendors, and researchers. This paper looks at the > different classes of solutions in Section 2 and analyzes them based > on the incentives of the involved parties in Section 3. The key > issue is finding a solution that provides immediate benefits to > > > > Arkko Expires November 28, 2008 > [Page 2] > > Internet-Draft P2P and Incentives May > 2008 > > > everyone who needs to add new mechanisms or equipment. Another key > issue is the information available to different parties. This leads > us to make conclusions in Section 4. > > > 2. Solution Classes > > A number of solutions have already been deployed to mitigate issues > caused by the changed traffic pattern. Other solutions are actively > being worked on. We divide the solutions in three rough classes, > based partially on similar classifications in [P2PI.tschofenig] > [P2PI.moncaster]: > > Contractual > > These solutions are based on choosing pricing models and > contractual conditions that persuade users to avoid always-on > traffic. For instance, volume-based accounting can be employed, > or the contracts of the heaviest users can be discontinued. > > Voluntary changes in applications > > These solutions are based on some change of behaviour in the > applications, leading to taking other users better into account, > reducing congestion or the use of expensive links, and so on. > > Some of the solutions in this category include: > > * Indicating the desired quality of service, so that interactive > and always-on applications can be distinguished in the network > [P2PI.moncaster]. This assumes that there is a basic level of > quality of service filtering capabilities in the network. > > * Making decisions with better information about the network > topology and cost. For instance, algorithms that P2P > applications use to determine which peers to talk to can > probably be improved. One particular class of improvements > involves "oracles" in the service provider network to help > applications determine the most likely peers with good > connectivity. For instance, peers that are in the local > service provider network vs. behind an expensive and/or > congested transit service provider. > > * New congestion control mechanisms. For instance, BitTorrent > has gotten positive results from their new algorithm > [P2PI.shalunov]. Another example is Bob Briscoe's re-ECN > mechanism [I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-re-ecn-tcp], which allows hosts > and networks to co-operate in the treatment of congestion, and > > > > Arkko Expires November 28, 2008 > [Page 3] > > Internet-Draft P2P and Incentives May > 2008 > > > allows networks to treat different users in a fair manner. > > Network-based mechanisms > > These mechanisms are implemented solely in the network. Examples > include: > > * Prioritization, slowdown, or even blocking of traffic based on > packet header information. Relatively complicated designs > that > peek further into the packet, Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) > have > also been deployed. Priorities can also be set based on user > accounting information, e.g., traffic shaping heavy users > during a rush hour. > > * Changing the "scheduling algorithm", by attempting to complete > the short jobs first everyone's performance will improve. > Similar techniques as discussed above are needed to determine > which jobs are "short" and "long", however. > > * Building caches and peer-to-peer network components in the > service provider network. > > > 3. Incentives > > This section discusses motives, deployment considerations, and how > information available to the different parties affects the > incentives. > > 3.1. Motives > > For any solution to be adopted the involved parties have to have > compatible motives. This is not always trivial, because the parties > may either optimize for different goals, or because there is room > for > malicious behaviour. > > For instance, one type of a quality-of-service solution involves > voluntary marking of packets by applications and subsequent > differentiated treatment of these packets by the network. In this > case the motives of well-behaving users and service providers are > similar: both want interactive applications to be given more > priority, while allowing always-on batch applications to run in the > background, and take as much bandwidth as is available. However, if > the prioritization happens across multiple users, this also implies > that a lower priority marking has the potential to reduce the user's > share of the overall throughput. Clever users can distort the > system > by claiming to run only interactive applications. A tragedy of the > commons follows: The optimal strategy from the point of view of the > > > > Arkko Expires November 28, 2008 > [Page 4] > > Internet-Draft P2P and Incentives May > 2008 > > > entire group of users would be to correctly classify traffic. But > from the point of an individual user a better strategy would be to > lie. > > Note that no misbehaviour is needed from a human user for this to > happen. It is enough that the user runs applications that do this. > And if such applications appear to produce better results than other > applications, the user has an incentive to use them. Having said > this, past experience tells us that a vast majority of networking > software plays by the rules. Attempts to improve or bypass TCP > congestion control are relatively rare, for instance. > > An example where the motives themselves may be conflict is the co- > operation between P2P applications and service providers to > determine > the "best" peers to connect to. The definition of "best" from the > P2P client perspective is a peer that has the highest possible > actual > transfer rate. But the service provider is more interested in > minimization of their costs and overall network congestion. This > may > or may not coincide with the client's desires. For instance, a > service provider may prefer a local peer with a slow access link > over > a remote peer that is connected via an expensive transit connection. > > While not part of the incentives, the available information to the > different parties plays an interesting role as well. It can be > expected that P2P nodes are capable of measuring actual transfer > rates across the end-to-end path, including the behaviour of the end > systems. P2P applications might even be able to accumulate this > information from multiple clients and over time. In contrast, the > service provider network at its basic form would be limited to > understanding the topology and link speeds. More advanced service > provider networks may be capable of traffic-engineering and tracking > congestion in different parts of their network. However, they are > fundamentally incapable of measuring end systems or end-to-end > behaviour in paths that cross multiple networks. > > As a result of the motive conflict and lack of information, any > "oracle" style design [RIPE.feldmann] needs to play a fairly limited > role in supplying additional information to the P2P applications. > Information from the service provider network can help make an > initial guess or to narrow the search for the best peer. But it > cannot replace or govern the overall decision that the P2P > application needs to make on its own. > > Having basic support for peer selection in the P2P applications also > allows the service providers to focus on improvements in their own > network, as opposed to attempting to build tools that try to guide > selection of peers across multiple networks. As long as the oracle > focuses on increasing the number of peers within the service > > > > Arkko Expires November 28, 2008 > [Page 5] > > Internet-Draft P2P and Incentives May > 2008 > > > provider's network, the algorithms in P2P applications can take care > of optimizing the connectivity to peers in other networks. > > 3.2. Deployment Considerations > > Another important consideration is what needs to change in order for > a particular solution to be deployed. Some solutions can be > deployed > unilaterally, some require coordinated action. The coordination may > act as a disincentive to build support for a particular solution. > For instance, P2P application developers do not invest time in > building support for contacting an oracle in the service provider > network until it becomes likely that such oracles can actually used > in some fraction of networks; the limited development resources are > better invested in actions that the developers are in full control > of > -- for instance in improved peer selection algorithms that do not > depend on new infrastructure nodes. Similarly, service providers do > not invest in an oracle until there is software that actually uses > it. > > This problem affects the following types of solutions: > > o Quality of service marking in the host and priority treatment in > the network. > > o Network-assisted P2P peer selection. > > o Network-assisted congestion control mechanisms. > > 3.3. Availability of Information > > Section 3.1 discussed how available information affects the way best > peer selection can be made to work. But there are other aspects of > information availability as well. Specifically, when networks have > unilaterally implemented mechanisms that do not align with the > motives of P2P applications, the applications have employed > information hiding in order to prevent the network from making non- > desireable prioritization decisions for them. Eric Rescorla makes > the argument that ultimately P2P traffic can be secured and made to > resemble other types of traffic, such as VPN traffic. This makes it > very hard for the network to de-prioritize or modify P2P traffic > [P2PI.rescorla]. It is interesting that many of the solutions in > this workshop attempt to increase the amount of information > available > to the parties, while in reality the converse seems to happen. > > We would like to suggest that this trend can only be reversed if the > motives becomes more aligned between the players. That is, no P2P > application will participate in a system designed to restrict P2P > traffic. But they may participate in systems that attempt to > > > > Arkko Expires November 28, 2008 > [Page 6] > > Internet-Draft P2P and Incentives May > 2008 > > > optimize P2P traffic. > > > 4. Conclusions > > The right incentives are a key to the successful standardization and > deployment of any solution in this space. Based on our analysis, we > would like to suggest that the following avenues for IETF > documentation and standards be looked at: > > o Improved and/or standardized peer selection algorithms. These > can > be deployed unilaterally by application developers. > > o Co-operative designs where service provider networks supply > additional information that helps the P2P applications to make a > better initial selection of peers. This should only be done as a > sub-item to the above one; service provider networks do not have > sufficient information or incentives to make the full decision, > and attempting to do so would dissuade the P2P applications from > using such a system. > > o Improved and/or standardized congestion control mechanisms > suitable for P2P and other "always-on" applications. Again, > these > can be deployed unilaterally, and IETF can help ensure they > algorithms are safe for other traffic in the Internet. Note the > difference to quality of service mechanisms that typically > require > deployment at both ends; the quality of service mechanisms would > in many ways be the right solution for this problem, but it is > hard to get them deployed and used due to the issues mentioned > earlier in this paper. > > Still, both the co-operative designs and congestion control > mechanisms depend on the interest of the P2P application > developers and users. The primary incentive from their > perspective is the desire to be nice for the user's other > traffic. > > In any case, these items are tactical, short-term efforts. There is > an associated longer-term issue where the market place has to learn > to provide services without relying on statistical multiplexing. > Ultimately, if there is demand for communication services > (interactive or not) it should be met with an offering that allows > providers to build the infrastructure needed to support it, and > still > be profitable. Pricing models and service packaging has perhaps > even > more to do with this than technical solutions. > > > > > > > > Arkko Expires November 28, 2008 > [Page 7] > > Internet-Draft P2P and Incentives May > 2008 > > > Appendix A. Acknowledgments > > The author would like to thank Magnus Westerlund and Gonzalo > Camarillo for interesting discussions in this problem space. > > > 5. Informative References > > [I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-relax-fairness] > Briscoe, B., Moncaster, T., and A. Burness, "Problem > Statement: We Don't Have To Do Fairness Ourselves", > draft-briscoe-tsvwg-relax-fairness-00 (work in progress), > November 2007. > > [P2PI.daigle] > Daigle, L., "Defining Success: Questions for the Future > of > the Internet and Bandwidth-Intensive Activities", P2PI > position paper LLD-P2P-Position-May15.pdf, May 2008. > > [P2PI.tschofenig] > Tschofenig, H. and M. Matuszewski, "Dealing with P2P > Traffic in an Operator Network: State of the Art", P2PI > position paper p2p-state-of-the-art.pdf, May 2008. > > [P2PI.hardie] > Hardie, T., "Peer-to-peer Traffic and "Unattended > Consequences", P2PI position paper hardie - p2pi position > paper.rtf, May 2008. > > [P2PI.rescorla] > Rescorla, E., "Notes on P2P Blocking and Evasion", P2PI > position paper rescorla-p2pi.pdf, May 2008. > > [P2PI.shalunov] > Shalunov, S., "Users want P2P, we make it work", P2PI > position paper BitTorrent-Position-IETF-P2P.pdf, May > 2008. > > [P2PI.moncaster] > Moncaster, T., Briscoe, B., and L. Burness, "Is There a > Problem with Peer-to-peer Traffic", P2PI position paper > Is > There a Problem with Peer-to-Peer Traffic.pdf, May 2008. > > [RIPE.feldmann] > Feldmann, A., "ISP-Aided Neighbor Selection in P2P > Systems", RIPE presentation at RIPE-56, Berlin, May 2008. > > [I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-re-ecn-tcp] > Briscoe, B., "Re-ECN: Adding Accountability for Causing > > > > Arkko Expires November 28, 2008 > [Page 8] > > Internet-Draft P2P and Incentives May > 2008 > > > Congestion to TCP/IP", draft-briscoe-tsvwg-re-ecn-tcp-04 > (work in progress), July 2007. > > > Author's Address > > Jari Arkko > Ericsson > Jorvas 02420 > Finland > > Email: jari.arkko@piuha.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Arkko Expires November 28, 2008 > [Page 9] > > Internet-Draft P2P and Incentives May > 2008 > > > Full Copyright Statement > > Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). > > This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions > contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors > retain all their rights. > > This document and the information contained herein are provided on > an > "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE > REPRESENTS > OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST > AND > THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS > OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE > OF > THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED > WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. > > > Intellectual Property > > The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any > Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed > to > pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in > this document or the extent to which any license under such rights > might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has > made any independent effort to identify any such rights. > Information > on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be > found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. > > Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any > assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an > attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use > of > such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this > specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository > at > http://www.ietf.org/ipr. > > The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any > copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary > rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement > this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at > ietf-ipr@ietf.org. > > > > > > > > > > > > Arkko Expires November 28, 2008 [Page > 10] > _______________________________________________ p2pi mailing list p2pi@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi
- [p2pi] Incentives and Deployment Considerations f… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [p2pi] Incentives and Deployment Consideratio… Jari Arkko
- Re: [p2pi] Incentives and Deployment Consideratio… toby.moncaster