On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Randy Bush wrote:
> actually, it would be really helpful to the masses uf
us who are being
> liberal with our delete keys if someone would summarize
the two threads,
> comcast p2p management and 204/4.
240/4 has been summarized before: Look for email with
"MLC Note" in
subject. However, in future, MLC emails will contain
"[admin]" in the
subject.
Interestingly, the content for the p2p threads boils down
to:
a) Original post by Sean Donelan: Allegation that p2p
software "does not
play well" with the rest of the network users - unlike
TCP-based protocols
which results in more or less fair bandwidth allocation, p2p
software will
monopolize upstream or downstream bandwidth unfairly,
resulting in
attempts by network operators to control such traffic.
Followup by Steve Bellovin noting that if p2p software (like
bt) uses
tcp-based protocols, due to use of multiple tcp streams,
fairness is
achieved *between* BT clients, while being unfair to the
rest of the
network.
No relevant discussion of this subject has commenced, which
is troubling,
as it is, without doubt, very important for network
operations.
b) Discussion started by Adrian Chadd whether p2p software
is aware of
network topology or congestion - without apparent answer,
which leads me
to guess that the answer is "no".
c) Offtopic whining about filtering liability, MSO pricing,
fairness,
equality, end-user complaints about MSOs, filesharing of
family photos,
disk space provided by MSOs for web hosting.
Note: if you find yourself to have posted something that was
tossed into
the category c) - please reconsider your posting habits.
As usual, I apologise if I skipped over your post in this
summary.
-alex
|
