backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 36 comment(s) - last by MisterModder.. on Jun 25 at 3:17 PM


In a traditional CDN network data can only go from a central location. P2P has speeded up file transfers by allowing users to shuffle data, but its still inefficient. The new P4P technology will make communication more direct, resulting in cost savings and higher speed.  (Source: Doug Pasko and Laird Popkin)
As if P2P wasn't bad enough, now researchers have come up with a more efficient way to fileshare

The international community may be preparing to launch the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) which will force ISPs to log filesharing and hand over user records to the government, will eliminate privacy tools, and allow ex parte border searches, but there is some good news on the horizon.  Researchers at Yale have come up with a breakthrough in file sharing technology.  The new system coordinates Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Peer-to-Peer (P2P) software providers to raise internet efficiency, and perhaps file transfer speeds.

Changes in internet usage over the last 10 years have put a severe strain on the world's computers, causing them to run less efficiently and putting stress on overall internet bandwidth.  In 1998, P2P traffic accounted for only 10 percent of the total traffic on an average network.  Today it accounts for as much as 70 percent.  Web browsing, which once accounted for 60 percent of traffic has fallen to 20 percent, email from 10 percent down to 5 percent.

Professors Avi Silberschatz, Y. Richard Yang, and Ph.D. candidate Haiyong Xie, faculty members at Yale's Department of Computer Science, are developing a new proposed standard known as P4P.  P4P stands for “provider portal for P2P applications”.  The system would make for more explicit and uninterrupted communications between ISPs and P2P applications.

The team will be presenting their findings in a paper at the premier Seattle computer networking class ACM SIGCOMM 2008 in August.  In the paper, they detail how P4P will reduce cost for ISPs and improve P2P performance for normal users.  Silberschatz explains -- current P2P technologies do not have a sense of what network they're on and may do ridiculous things like making a long distance call to connect to a neighbor when transferring a file.  The lack of intelligence translates in money lost for the ISPs, particularly for users with "unlimited" connections, and in time lost for the consumer, who could be receiving the file faster.

The Yale team hasn't just come up with a name for and analysis of the new architecture; they also are testing and implementing key system components.  Yang states, "Right now the ISPs and P2P companies are dancing with the problem — but stepping on each other’s toes.  Our objective is to have an open architecture that any ISP and any P2P can participate in. Yale has facilitated this project behind the scenes and without direct financial interest through a working group called P4P that was formed in July 2007 to prompt collaboration on the project."

The working group used is hosted by DCIA [Distributed Computing Industry Association].  It is co-chaired by Doug Pasko from Verizon and Laird Popkin from Pando.  Over 50 major organizations are aboard the project.  Silberschatz says the new technology has the power to greatly improve the internet.  He comments, "The P4P architecture extends the Internet architecture by providing servers, called iTrackers, to each ISP.  The servers provide portals to the operation of ISP networks."

The new system is a multi-mode network -- In the most basic mode it simply reroutes traffic to avoid "hot spots".  In a more complex mode it trades traffic between ISPs to create the most efficient traffic and cost flow.  This will lower load on sites and lower overall operating costs.

Should ISPs be scared of losing their independence?  Not so says Silberschatz.  He states, "While ISPs like AT&T, Comcast, Telephonica and Verizon and the P2P software companies like Pando each maintains its independence, the value of the P4P architecture is significant, as demonstrated in recent field tests."

In a recent test using the new P4P system in a field test with Pando software in March 2008 reduced inter-ISP traffic by an average of 34 percent.  Better yet it increased the download speeds by 235 percent within the U.S. and 898 percent internationally.

Some might fear privacy ramifications of increased ISP involvement with P2P traffic.  This is possible, but unlikely as ISPs already carry all the P2P traffic and can elect to monitor it at any time as is.  Rather the new system will merely help to save money and save time for everyone involved.  About the only people who perhaps should be concerned with this development are the recording industry's legal teams; with P4P possibly powering downloads within a few years, many more years may quickly become the "Year of the Pirate".



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

ABOUT FRIGGIN' TIME!
By amanojaku on 5/29/2008 9:53:21 AM , Rating: 5
Looks like a win-win for everyone. I hope ISPs and content providers get on this and don't derail it like other potentially useful tech. Comcast should be the first ones to adopt this, the crybabies.




RE: ABOUT FRIGGIN' TIME!
By jnewbern on 5/29/2008 10:40:11 AM , Rating: 5
Well now we can find out how deep RIAA's pockets are. If they have any hopes of quashing P4P they are gonna have to make it worth it for the ISP's. My bet is that comcast is gonna do whats in its best financial benefit and hopefully that involves utilizing P4P.


RE: ABOUT FRIGGIN' TIME!
By amanojaku on 5/29/2008 10:59:55 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
If they have any hopes of quashing P4P they are gonna have to make it worth it for the ISP's.


How many times does this have to be said: P2P is not illegal. Like guns, P2P is perfectly legal, even if certain uses are not. P4P is no different. If P4P is all it's cracked up to be ISPs would be stupid not to implement it. If the RIAA quashes P4P they might as well go after cars and bags, too, since pirated CDs are carried around in those. Oh, and turn off the Internet, too.


RE: ABOUT FRIGGIN' TIME!
By darkpaw on 5/29/2008 11:29:03 AM , Rating: 4
It's all a matter of how it's used.

95% of gun owners don't go around killing people, but I'm more then willing to bet at least 95% of P2P use is for pirated content.


RE: ABOUT FRIGGIN' TIME!
By Screwballl on 5/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: ABOUT FRIGGIN' TIME!
By Nik00117 on 5/29/2008 2:46:15 PM , Rating: 3
10% for illegal purposes? Seriously dude that can't be anywhere close. I want to say it could easily be 70-80%. why? Because priated games are bigger then some linux distro.


RE: ABOUT FRIGGIN' TIME!
By rudy on 5/29/2008 9:45:08 PM , Rating: 1
I agree I can't think of anyone who uses p2p to say get a free ware app, when they can just get it off the free ware apps website or cnet, mostly they are doing it for music movies and games and none of them are paying for what they get off of it.


RE: ABOUT FRIGGIN' TIME!
By darkpaw on 5/29/2008 3:40:20 PM , Rating: 5
If you really think people are downloading 9 Linux distros for every pirated movie..


RE: ABOUT FRIGGIN' TIME!
By Staples on 5/30/2008 1:45:35 PM , Rating: 2
I am willing to bet my house that over (and probably well over) 90% of P2P traffic is for illegal use. Look what torrents are listed on the pirate bay and tell me what percentage of them are legal.


RE: ABOUT FRIGGIN' TIME!
By Lerianis on 5/29/2008 9:11:39 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, no, it isn't. The RIAA and MPAA financed a study a few years ago that found most things being downloaded were 'grey-area' stuff (things not available in the country where they were being downloaded) or white area stuff like subtitled TV episodes like I download Naruto Shippuuden.


RE: ABOUT FRIGGIN' TIME!
By kenji4life on 5/30/2008 4:18:44 AM , Rating: 2
Good point, but it's probably more like 99.5% in both cases (if not more).

If 95% of gun owners weren't killing people (let's assume this doesn't include active duty military combat folks), that would mean 1 in 20 gun owners were going around killing people. At this rate, the murder capita in most places in the world where guns are legal would increase by exponential margins. Let's also not forget that a large percentage of the current homicides by firearm are black-market, stolen, illegal, etc guns. If we were able to properly control these "contraband" firearms, I'm sure that the rate would decrease even further.

On the other hand, while "traditional" P2P programs such as torrent's users are likely very close to 100% for copyright infringement (let's call it 99% or so), again this is not representative of ALL P2P. This would disregard the other forms of P2P, such as collaborative media streaming, LEGAL file sharing of open source software (usually unix or linux users), internet telephony, and even some internet relay chat and forum functions.

Now, all that being said, I would still agree that a large percentage of P2P is copyright infringement, but blanket statements are often mis-representative, and only further categorize "P2P" as "Illegal sharing of files".

The reality is that P2P is an essential form of communication, which has been made infamous by copyright infringement. Of course I was getting "Warez" on AOL before "Napster" could be defined as anything more than "someone who likes to take short naps".

Well, that's all for now, myself and several thousand other people in my city now have an appointment to go murder people with our guns.


RE: ABOUT FRIGGIN' TIME!
By FaceMaster on 5/31/2008 12:05:01 PM , Rating: 2
YOU'RE FORGETTING SOMETHING. Those 5% of gun owners who go around shooting people are likely to have more than one gun... They're not all one armed bandits.


RE: ABOUT FRIGGIN' TIME!
By kenji4life on 6/2/2008 11:59:35 AM , Rating: 2
What the frack are you talking about?

Anyways, I'd be willing to guess that in my home state of Oregon, more gun owners own more than one gun than gun owners who only own one gun. I'm in the former category.

I'm still having a hard time understanding why 1 gun = 1 arm.. how does this factor into the false statistic of 95% in any way? A gun owner is a gun owner no matter how many guns you own. If I have 15 guns, that doesn't mean that 15 non-gun owning people are now counted as gun owners.. that kind of logic is a bit strange, to say the least.


RE: ABOUT FRIGGIN' TIME!
By FaceMaster on 6/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: ABOUT FRIGGIN' TIME!
By abzillah on 5/29/2008 11:31:24 AM , Rating: 3
No one is saying that P2P is illegal. P2P takes 70% of traffic, and companies trying to reduce their cost will monitor P2P and put a cap on it's download and upload speeds. P4P will reduce internet traffic and increase download speeds. So, the internet provider will save money because bandwidth use is lowered, and the P4P user will be happy to download faster. This provides opportunity for P4P users to download movies and music at faster rates, and so pirating will increase. So, if the RIAA doesn't want more people to take away their profits, they will have to pay the internet providers more money than the money saved from using P4P. So, we are not talking about P2P or P4P being illegal, but rather how will it affect other activities that will reduce profit of the Music and Movie industry.


RE: ABOUT FRIGGIN' TIME!
By jnewbern on 5/29/2008 12:36:16 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks abzillah :) My point exactly.


RE: ABOUT FRIGGIN' TIME!
By ATWindsor on 5/29/2008 3:30:19 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I have said it before, and I will say it again. ISPs is one of the few companies that makes large demand for the product they are selling into a problem insted of a opportunity


RE: ABOUT FRIGGIN' TIME!
By Lerianis on 5/29/2008 9:14:28 PM , Rating: 2
You are exactly right. Frankly, anyone with a BRAIN would see the possibilities of p2p for downloading stuff and distributing stuff, and integrate it into their own technology.

Unfortunately, the MPAA/RIAA don't want to do that for some reason. I'll be blunt: I am MORE than willing to use an RIAA/MPAA/Etc. branded p2p client to download things LEGALLY off the internet.
Put a real, sane amount or cost on the things in question (.39$ to download a song, 3.00 or less for a movie) and I will willingly pay for it!