Re: Comcast blocking p2p uploads

> In a message written on Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 03:21:09PM
-0400, Joe Provo wr=
> ote:
> > Content is irrelevent.  BT is a protocol-person's
dream and an ISP
> > nightmare. The bulk of the slim profit margin
exists in taking=20
> > advantage of stat-mux oversubscription. BT blows
that out of the=20
> > water.
> 
> I'm a bit confused by your statement.  Are you saying
it's more
> cost effective for ISP's to carry downloads thousands
of miles
> across the US before giving them to the end user than
it is to allow
> a local end user to "upload" them to other
local end users?

It's quite possible that I've completely missed it, but I
hadn't seen many
examples of P2P protocols where any effort was made to
locate "local"
users and prefer them.  In some cases, this may happen due
to the type of
content, but I'd guess it to be rare.  Am I missing some new
development?

If it isn't being transferred locally, then the ISP is being
stuck with
the pain of carrying a download thousands of miles, probably
from a 
peering (or worse, transit) with another ISP that has also
had to carry 
it some distance.

... JG
-- 
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me
one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n
position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way
too many apples.

In a message written on Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 07:12:35PM
-0500, Joe Greco wrote:
> > In a message written on Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at
03:21:09PM -0400, Joe Provo wr=
> > ote:
> > > Content is irrelevent.  BT is a
protocol-person's dream and an ISP
> > > nightmare. The bulk of the slim profit margin
exists in taking=20
> > > advantage of stat-mux oversubscription. BT
blows that out of the=20
> > > water.
> > 
> > I'm a bit confused by your statement.  Are you
saying it's more
> > cost effective for ISP's to carry downloads
thousands of miles
> > across the US before giving them to the end user
than it is to allow
> > a local end user to "upload" them to
other local end users?
> 
> It's quite possible that I've completely missed it, but
I hadn't seen many
> examples of P2P protocols where any effort was made to
locate "local"
> users and prefer them.  In some cases, this may happen
due to the type of
> content, but I'd guess it to be rare.  Am I missing
some new development?

Most P2P clients favor the "faster" sources. 
Faster is some sort
of combination of lower latency and/or higher bandwidth. 
This tends
to favor local clients, however can be quickly skewed by
other
factors.

> If it isn't being transferred locally, then the ISP is
being stuck with
> the pain of carrying a download thousands of miles,
probably from a 
> peering (or worse, transit) with another ISP that has
also had to carry 
> it some distance.

But back the the original premise.  If say, Linux is being
distributed
both from a central web site, and via P2P:

1) Central web site.  All but the one ISP with the web site
will
   have the traffic going over peering or worse transit, and
will
   often be carrying them thousands of miles from the
central point.

2) P2P.  Has a good chance at least some seeders will be on
the same
   network, avoiding peering and transits for some fraction
of the
   traffic.  Has a good chance the seeders are closer to the
user
   than the web site, perhaps even on the same cable
segment.

I think the more interesting thing here is overall rate
limit.
Let's compare a central web site with a 1Gbps connection for
10,000
downloaders, or a P2P model where there are 10,000
downloaders,
5,000 of which are willing to serve content (obviously
starting
with 1-5 seeders, and slowly growing as people download it.

Even if provers only offer 1Mbp/sec of upload, those 5,000
content
providers can put an aggregate 5Gbps into the network, where
as the
central server can only put a aggregate 1Gbps into the
network.

So, while the bit*mile cost may be lower in the P2P case,
the peek
bit rate is higher (which users like, faster downloads); and
since
ISP's are forced to size their network for peak rate to
insure user
satisfaction the "cost" of P2P is higher, even
though the bit mile
cost is lower.

I think.  At least, that's my guess from Joe's statement,
I'd like him
to elaborate.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknellufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bic
knell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-requesttmbg.org, www.tmbg.org

Actually Pando does try to localize traffic as much as
possible. Not 
only that we have started the P4P Working Group.

Keith

Pando Networks

See link below

Joe Greco wrote:
>> In a message written on Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at
03:21:09PM -0400, Joe Provo wr=
>> ote:
>>     
>>> Content is irrelevent.  BT is a
protocol-person's dream and an ISP
>>> nightmare. The bulk of the slim profit margin
exists in taking=20
>>> advantage of stat-mux oversubscription. BT
blows that out of the=20
>>> water.
>>>       
>> I'm a bit confused by your statement.  Are you
saying it's more
>> cost effective for ISP's to carry downloads
thousands of miles
>> across the US before giving them to the end user
than it is to allow
>> a local end user to "upload" them to
other local end users?
>>     
>
> It's quite possible that I've completely missed it, but
I hadn't seen many
> examples of P2P protocols where any effort was made to
locate "local"
> users and prefer them.  In some cases, this may happen
due to the type of
> content, but I'd guess it to be rare.  Am I missing
some new development?
>
> If it isn't being transferred locally, then the ISP is
being stuck with
> the pain of carrying a download thousands of miles,
probably from a 
> peering (or worse, transit) with another ISP that has
also had to carry 
> it some distance.
>
> ... JG
>