* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download P4P: Proactive Provider Assistance for P2P
Survey
Document related concepts
Asynchronous Transfer Mode wikipedia , lookup
Distributed firewall wikipedia , lookup
Internet protocol suite wikipedia , lookup
Computer network wikipedia , lookup
Network tap wikipedia , lookup
Cracking of wireless networks wikipedia , lookup
Airborne Networking wikipedia , lookup
Zero-configuration networking wikipedia , lookup
Piggybacking (Internet access) wikipedia , lookup
Net neutrality law wikipedia , lookup
Recursive InterNetwork Architecture (RINA) wikipedia , lookup
List of wireless community networks by region wikipedia , lookup
Quality of service wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
P4P : Provider Portal for (P2P) Applications Haiyong Xie Laird Popkin Laboratory of Networked Systems Yale University Pando Networks, Inc P2P : Bandwidth Usage Traffic: Internet Protocol Breakdown 1993 - 2006 File-Types: Major P2P Networks - 2006 Up to 50-70% of Internet traffic is contributed by P2P applications Cache logic research: Internet protocol breakdown 1993 – 2006; Velocix: File-types on major P2P networks. A Fundamental Problem Network-oblivious P2P applications may not be network efficient Traditional Internet architectural feedback to applications is limited: 50%-90% of existing local pieces in active users are downloaded externally Average P2P bit traverses 1000 miles / 5.5 metro hops in Verizon network routing (hidden) rate control through coarse-grained TCP congestion feedback Emerging applications such as P2P can have tremendous flexibility in shaping how data is communicated more information and feedback are needed to most effectively utilize this flexibility, and for improving network efficiency P4P Mission Design a framework to enable better providers and applications cooperation ISP perspective: guide applications to achieve more efficient network usage P2P perspective: better user experiences P4P: provider portal for (P2P) applications a provider can be a traditional ISP (e.g., AT&T, Verizon) or a content distribution provider (e.g., Akamai), or a caching provider (e.g., PeerApp) The P4P Framework: Control Plane iTracker: a portal for each network resource provider (iPortal) An iTracker provides multiple interfaces Static topology / policy Provider capability Virtual cost … iTracker of a provider can be identified in multiple ways e.g., through DNS SRV records; whois iTracker can be run by trusted third parties iTracker access protected by access control Virtual Cost Interface: Network’ Internal View PIDs: set of nodes each 30 called a PID E: set of links PID6 connecting PIDs pe: the “virtual price” 15 of link e Usage of “virtual price” PID1 70 PID2 20 10 PID5 60 PID3 10 PID4 vPrice can be used to rank peers, converted to peering weights vPrice reflects both network status and policy, e.g., OSPF weights higher prices on links with highest util. or higher than a threshold congestion volume (Briscoe) Virtual Cost Interface: Applications’ View ISP computes the cost from PID1 30 70 10 PID2 one PID to another - link cost and routing PID-pair costs are perturbed 60 20 to increase privacy PID6 PID3 PID5 PID4 Applications query costs of related PID pairs, adjust traffic patterns to place less load on more “expensive” pairs Interdomain: Application External View Application obtains cost for top (ASN, PID) pairs Intradomain cost + interdomain cost From AS 1’s point view (AS1, PID1) (AS2, PID2) Intradomain cost + interdomain cost From AS 2’s point view Example: P4P Protocol for BT pTracker iTracker 2 3 1 4 ISP A peer Information flow: 1. peer queries pTracker 2/3. pTracker asks iTracker for virtual cost (occasionally) 4. pTracker selects and returns a set of active peers, according to both the virtual prices and its own P2P objective Complete Set: Feb 21 to April 2008 FTTH 209% faster Current P4P-WG: 70+ Members ISPs, P2Ps, Researchers. Scope includes business processes, protocols, education, etc. Core Group AT&T Bezeq Intl BitTorrent Cisco Systems Comcast Grid Networks Joost LimeWire Manatt Oversi Pando Networks PeerApp Solid State Telefonica Group Velocix VeriSign Telecom Italia Verizon Vuze University of Toronto Univ of Washington Yale University Observers Abacast AHT Intl AjauntySlant Akamai Alcatel Lucent CableLabs Cablevision Cox Comm Exa Networks Juniper Networks Lariat Network Level 3 Communications Limelight Networks Microsoft MPAA NBC Universal Nokia Orange Princeton University RawFlow RSUC/GweepNet SaskTel Solana Networks Speakeasy Network Stanford University Thomson Time Warner Cable Turner Broadcasting UCLA Discussions I: Possible modifications to/uses of IETF protocols Trackerless p2p Tracker-based p2p use a mechanism to locate iTrackers (e.g. DNS) A mechanism for clients to find their (ASN, PID) (i.e. easier than IP mapping) A lookup mechanism for finding the iTracker for a given ASN. Enable P2P to "play nice" with ISPs A mechanism for determining the ISPs usage policies, and the user's usage against quota. Imagine using a cell phone without being able to tell how many minutes you've used. A standard mechanism for marking "bulk data" (i.e. not time sensitive). Discussions II: P4P Data Plane ISP A ISP B b a Routers mark packets to provide faster, fine-grained feedbacks, e.g., virtual capacity to optimize multihoming cost and performance - applications adjust traffic rates according to feedbacks Applications mark importance of traffic