Re: [p2pi] Thoughts on how IETF standards can help P2P/ISPs

Laird Popkin <laird@pando.com> Mon, 02 June 2008 17:58 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 ED8733A6840; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:58:35 -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 E82853A6915 for <p2pi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:58:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.065
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.065 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_COI=-8, 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 v4QqjK5M3De3 for <p2pi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:58:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkny.pando.com (dkny.pando.com [67.99.55.163]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BA353A6840 for <p2pi@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:58:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by dkny.pando.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 994E0E10C4C; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 13:58:23 -0400 (EDT)
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 h0Hlh68WzZrv; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 13:58:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dkny.pando.com (dkny.pando.com [10.10.60.11]) by dkny.pando.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B5B2E10C45; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 13:58:23 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:58:23 -0400
From: Laird Popkin <laird@pando.com>
To: Nicholas Weaver <nweaver@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU>
Message-ID: <1199216619.309081212429503025.JavaMail.root@dkny.pando.com>
In-Reply-To: <2E865AA6-EED7-416F-BB69-16F912197E59@icsi.berkeley.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Originating-IP: [10.10.20.73]
Cc: p2pi@ietf.org, ramit@pando.com, Nicholas Weaver <nweaver@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU>, p4pwg@yahoogroups.com, Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: [p2pi] Thoughts on how IETF standards can help P2P/ISPs
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

I certainly understand why it's somewhere between hard and impossible to give precise congestion status in all cases, due to VPN's, etc.. That being said, even getting less precise guidance, and only in the more common cases, would help us make better decisions for large numbers of users. For example, being told when we're causing congestion of home consumer internet connections with single-NAT networks would help us "play nicely" for a large number of users.

- Laird Popkin, CTO, Pando Networks
  mobile: 646/465-0570

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nicholas Weaver" <nweaver@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU>
To: "Joe Touch" <touch@ISI.EDU>
Cc: "Nicholas Weaver" <nweaver@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU>, "Laird Popkin" <laird@pando.com>, ramit@pando.com, p2pi@ietf.org, p4pwg@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2008 1:51:12 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: Re: [p2pi] Thoughts on how IETF standards can help P2P/ISPs


On Jun 2, 2008, at 10:37 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
>> Even better would be to get
>> some indication of where the congestion occurred. For example, if the
>> congestion is in the 'last mile', or the other peer's 'last mile', or
>> somewhere in between, different responses would be appropriate. For
>> example, if my internet connection is fine, but the peer's  
>> connection is
>> congested, I should slow down transfers from that peer, and pull more
>> from other peers. This is, of course, easier said than done.
>
> This is not feasible for a number of reasons, including the use of  
> tunnels and VPNs. It's possible to know whether the end systems are  
> loaded (applications can tell each other), but path limits are hard  
> to pin down. It's more useful to just try a few peers and see what  
> works than to assume this kind of information is (or ever will be)  
> available.

Bulk data P2P can actually tell this if the TCP access API is  
suitable, by looking for correlations.  If its just one flow that is  
seeing congestion, assume it is the other side.  If multiple flows are  
seeing congestion, then the problem probably is at your end.


_______________________________________________
p2pi mailing list
p2pi@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi