Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bittorrent Implements Cache Discovery Protocol

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the middlemen-i-wouldn't-want-to-be dept.

170

An anonymous reader writes "CacheLogic and BitTorrent introduce an open-source Cache Discovery Protocol (CDP) that allows ISP's to cache and seed Bittorrent traffic. Currently, Bittorrent traffic is suffering from bandwidth throttling ISP's that claim that Bittorrent traffic is cluttering their pipes. This motivated the developers of the most popular Bittorrent clients implement protocol encryption to protect bittorrent users from being slowed down by their ISP's. However, Bram Cohen, the founder of Bittorrent doubted that encryption was the solution, and found (together with CacheLogic) a more ISP friendly alternative."

cancel ×

170 comments

i wanna go fast (5, Funny)

MrSquirrel (976630) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862112)

We have the technology -- we can make him stronger, faster, better! ...now, if only there were some more seeders.

Re:i wanna go fast (1)

ronanbear (924575) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862172)

It's about time something like this was done. Caching is complicated but is in theory so much faster. The older system of local mirrors for downloading software faster is something that could really benefit from being used in conjunction with bittorrent.

If you throttle my bandwidth.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15862382)

I swear to god I'll come at you like a spider monkey!

Re:i wanna go fast (3, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862659)

Wouldn't this technology make your ISP a seeder? Now that would be fast.

FIRST TROUT! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15862113)

I AM A FISH!

Off the cuff thought (5, Interesting)

Arimus (198136) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862114)

Just read this and wonder what the legal position for ISP's will be with regards to caching non-legal P2P files (warez, music files etc)?

With the files being on my PC and served from my PC I'm the responsible party... if the ISP then is caching that data to make it more available (speed/latency/load reduction etc) then the ISP could be deemed to being a party to an illegal act...

Re:Off the cuff thought (5, Informative)

zhouray (985297) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862134)

I assumed you didn't read the article. It says "only for commercially licensed content".

Re:Off the cuff thought (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15862189)

It says "only for commercially licensed content".

It's distributing commercially licensed content that people get in trouble for. They're not likely to be sued for uploading firefox or other non-commercial content now are they? It's ripping commercial CDs and DVDs that gets people in trouble.

Re:Off the cuff thought (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862610)

The should be under the same risk as they would be using a web proxy. Web proxies can distribute illegal content just as easily as bittorrent.

Re:Only for commercially licensed content (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15862673)

It says "only for commercially licensed content".
I thought the point was to help reduce the amount of bittorrent traffic. How many of the torrents in your queue are "commercially licensed content", and not illegal warez, movies, games, pron, etc? I for can't recall that I've ever even seen a "legal" torrent anywhere on the internet.

Re:Only for commercially licensed content (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15862895)

You've never seen a legal torrent? Seriously?

Most of the GNU/Linux distributions I've downloaded were via Torrents.

Re:Only for commercially licensed content (1)

stfvon007 (632997) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863090)

Some games distribute updates via bittorrent (such as Gunz: the duel)

Re:Only for commercially licensed content (3, Insightful)

rikkards (98006) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863360)

Most of the GNU/Linux distributions I've downloaded were via Torrents.


It's not GNU/Linux distributions that have caused ISPs to decide to bandwidth throttle bittorrents.

Re:Off the cuff thought (1)

eipgam (945201) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862175)

I'm surprised nothing like this has come up already with ISPs using (transparent) caching HTTP proxies.

Re:Off the cuff thought (1)

saleenS281 (859657) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862205)

no different than news servers. They don't monitor what goes on it, they only respond when contacted by the copyright holder. No harm no foul.

Re:Off the cuff thought (5, Insightful)

muftak (636261) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862302)

On the cache the files are stored as file chunks, with only a reference to the file hash value, not the filename. So the ISP has no idea what is in the cache, so it is the same as the file being passed through their network.

Sounds just like Freenet.. (1)

Myself (57572) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863114)

...but without the crypto.

It's a shame more ISPs don't run freenet, tor, or i2p nodes. Usenet servers were a good idea, and torrent caching servers are a step in the right direction.

Re:Off the cuff thought (5, Interesting)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862304)

It looks like (from TFA), there will be restrictions in place that only allow caching of non-copyrighted, legal content.

It goes a LONG way towards legitimizing BitTorrent in case anyone tries to sue Bram, but contains no real-world benefits.

If ISPs want to reduce bandwidth overuse by seeders... Just IMPLEMENT MULTICAST ALREADY!

Yes, I realize multicast has historically presented major problems in scalability at the backbone router level, but with modern processing power and memory economics, it shouldn't be that difficult to implement now, and in the end presents far more benefits (massive reduction in bandwidth usage) than its disadvantages (backbone routers need some pretty hefty amounts of memory to track all of the multicast groups.)

Even "limited" multicast solutions like xcast (explicit multicast - basically instead of sending to a "multicast group" an IP datagram is given multiple destinations) would result in MASSIVE reductions in bandwidth usage by P2P applications like BitTorrent.

Due to the nature of BitTorrent and how it is used in general, caching is just an extremely hackish and limited way of implementing a shitty form of multicast... If the backbone supported multicast, there wouldn't be any need for caching of torrents.

Re:Off the cuff thought (5, Insightful)

mzs (595629) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862369)

And who doles-out the multicast group addresses? I think the problem is harder than you think at first glance.

Re:Off the cuff thought (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862432)

ICANN?

I'd imagine that ISPs would have to buy small chunks of multicast addresses and then resell them to people. Unfortunatly that will probably kill the idea before it even gets started, since ISPs will no doubt charge and arm and a leg for a Multicast IP and Bittorrent users generally want to avoid drawing too much attention from their ISP. It might make sense if there is just a pool of multicast groups that's managed by a central server for all Bittorrent users, but even that sounds like a non-starter. Multicast is just difficult to get right.

Re:Off the cuff thought (3, Informative)

silas_moeckel (234313) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863253)

They are allready allocated. Modern multicast uses a source IP / port, multicast destination address /port tuple(sp?) so realy you can pick any of the piles of multicast addresses to use traffic is split up based upon the tuple that you joined. Lower end gear hasent been as specific as higher end gear in splitting up traffic leasing the OS to remove anything unwanted but modern switches listen in on multicast setup to be more specific but those times are going away as the old gear gets aged out (managed 100bt gear is about the newest stuff that would do this)

Re:Off the cuff thought (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862709)

As I mentioned in my post, even a limited form of multicast such as explicit multicast (Google for xcast) solves both the issue of limited multicast groups and of massive routing tables. It isn't as formalized a standard as traditional IP Multicast, but that doesn't really matter since IP Multicast is basically not implemented by anyone except in very limited scopes. Yes, xcast has its own limitations (limit on number of destinations from the maximum size of an IP datagram, and the potential for "spam" style abuse), but even if xcast (or a similar approach) were limited to a maximum of x (say, 8 for example) recipients per datagram by routers, it would present a MASSIVE advantage for P2P.

Re:Off the cuff thought (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862941)

> It looks like (from TFA), there will be restrictions in place that only allow caching
> of non-copyrighted, legal content.

"Non-copyrighted", eh? I suspect that isn't what you really mean. Hint: this article is copyrighted. So is yours.

Re:Off the cuff thought (4, Insightful)

Spezzer (101371) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863140)

Some people in networking research believe that the problem with Multicast (and even QoS) has nothing to do with scalability, but more with economics. Although in this case, ISPs would reduce traffic going through their network by enabling multicast, there is no popular method of accounting for internal traffic when multicast is enabled on all routers. For most ISPs this is unacceptable, since large customers are billed based on the amount of traffic sent. Since there's no economic model developed for multicast-traffic, ISPs would rather throttle back BitTorrent than enable multicast. Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken on any of these points.

Most networking researchers seem to believe multicast is technologically feasible and helpful, which is why a lot of Internet architecture research seems to provide methods for multicast, even though hardly anybody uses it today.

Re:Off the cuff thought (1)

TCM (130219) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863389)

If ISPs want to reduce bandwidth overuse by seeders... Just IMPLEMENT MULTICAST ALREADY!
Isn't Multicast a real-time protocol, i.e. everyone would have to download a torrent at the same time to benefit from it? Multicast seems to be more suited for TV-like applications, not random access bulk data. Or am I missing something?

Re:Off the cuff thought (5, Interesting)

Sark666 (756464) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862349)

When bittorrent 4.2 was released, there was already mention of this, and I thought ya right the isps will help with torrents, but supposedly isp caching (even copyright material) is allowed under the dmca.

http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=1231 [slyck.com]

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u sc_sec_17_00000512----000-.html [cornell.edu]

" If a file shows up on the network frequently, the cache stores that file so that its seeded in the network rather than by peers. ISPs appreciate this because their access networks are terribly congested with P2P traffic. Caches are legal and covered explicitly in the DMCA"

Re:Off the cuff thought (2, Informative)

xenocide2 (231786) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862880)

The thing is, the intention of the law for caching is for otherwise legal copies. As in, graphic images for popular websites like slashdot are allowed to be cached, so long as you obey industry standard refresh requirements. And section E of the conditions pretty much makes it clear that observing copyright is more important than saving bandwidth.

Which is to say, because the internet is incredibly efficient at duplicating binary information, rather than mere transferral, machines involved in improving this process aren't held as infringing on copyright by virtue of simply doing their job storing packets after they've reached their destination. This is similar in intent to the laws that say you're not infringing for having a copy of a program on disk and in memory, or in residual backing store.

Moreover, the cache requires that both of you request a specific material from an identical person. It remains to be seen if a chunk, the small parts of a file that you distribute among peers, qualifies as a material. And even if it did, there's the problem that you likely haven't requested the chunk from the same person. The law simply wasn't written with bittorrent / swarming style p2p in mind, and a literal interpretation would likely fall flat in court.

At any rate, if an ISP choose to seed, say a movie, that would likely cause a ruckus with the owner. I'm no lawyer but it seems plausible that such an action would violate 512 (b) 1 A, which requires someone besides the ISP to offer the data. In otherwords, the ISP can't be the source of copyright violation and get away with it. Not to mention consumer ISPs would rather sell you the movie with their media partners rather than sell you bandwidth and piss those partners off. The short and long of it is that if you're gonna cache bittorrent, you might as well just use something like newsgroups instead.

Re:Off the cuff thought (1)

Psykosys (667390) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862924)

The short and long of it is that if you're gonna cache bittorrent, you might as well just use something like newsgroups instead.
Sshhh! Keep it on the d/l!

Re:Off the cuff thought (2, Interesting)

Pxtl (151020) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863126)

I think you've hit the nail on the head with "ya right".

Doesn't matter if ISP-side torrent-cacheing woudl turn every computer into a supercomputer - ISPs won't do it, for a variety of reasons:

1) Legal liability, obviously. Sure, it's probably fine, but not-caching torrents is definitely fine, which is better than probably fine. This is called the "chilling effect".

2) Easier just to not do it. The torrent-cache is one more system to maintain that they'd probably just rather do without. For any software problem there are two solutions, the right solution and the easy solution - and an ISP will always choose the easy solution unless it offends 99% of their customers.

3) The only people who want this feature are the kind of users the ISP would rather be rid of. You know, the users that actually use their service instead of just checking email once in a while.

3)

Re:Off the cuff thought (1)

AnyoneEB (574727) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863385)

But it could save bandwidth for the ISP. Any transfers they can keep within their own network are transfers they do not have to pay someone else for. As to whether that outweighs the reasons you give against implementing caching remains to be seen.

Re:Off the cuff thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15862590)

if the ISP then is caching that data to make it more available (speed/latency/load reduction etc) then the ISP could be deemed to being a party to an illegal act..

If you really had read the article, you would have seen that only commercially licensed content is going to be cached. It's the last sentence in the "however" paragraph. (That's the paragraph where every sentence begins with "However".)

Re:Off the cuff thought (1)

xdotx (966421) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863208)

I assume this type of action would be of the same legality as Google's caching. Which has to my knowledge gone unquestioned for years.

Re:Off the cuff thought (2, Informative)

nuintari (47926) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863539)

I work for an ISP, and no, you are incorrect. ISP's are not Telco's and are therefore, not covered by common carrier status. You share illegal files, your ISP is just as liable as you are. If the copyright holder files a complaint with the ISP, and the ISP doesn't deal with the issue to the holder's satisfaction, the ISP can be sued as if they were directly responsable.

Doesn't mean it happens, any smart ISP noc shuts anything down as soon as they get a complaint. Frequent offenders might just find themselves being contacted by the copyright holder directly.

As for server's at my core network caching bit torrent, and sending it out all over the place, no thank you. Bandwidth costs money people. I'd rather the customer saturate the hell out of his own connection, encourage to throttle it back a little, than have 10 mbit of zero revenue generating bandwidth flying out over my upstreams.

Oh, and that's CISCO Discovery Protocol, get your own acronym.

Possible legal problems (4, Insightful)

woodhouse (625329) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862128)

Given that a lot of torrents are copyrighted content, are ISPs really going to want to do this? The moment they start caching these files on their servers, they become a huge target for lawsuits.

Re:Possible legal problems (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862144)

Dang I was just going to say that! Well here is to hoping that the MPAA and RIAA sue every ISP in the nation. When all the evildoers are busy fighting with each other they are bound to leave us consumers alone. (Maybe wishful thinking)

Re:Possible legal problems (2, Interesting)

MrZaius (321037) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862188)

Given that a lot of torrents are copyrighted content, are ISPs really going to want to do this? The moment they start caching these files on their servers, they become a huge target for lawsuits.

On top of that, what torrents are ever so common as to warrant the use of a cache? There are certainly legitimate users of bittorrent, if you can limit the cache to legitimate content. But what torrents would ever be accessed so frequently by individual users on any given network that this would make sense? My employer's just ~300-400 customers strong, but I don't see how this could be useful to any ISP, given that the largest would probably only benefit if the caches were replicated and stored close to the users.

Re:Possible legal problems (1)

tacarat (696339) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862293)

On top of that, what torrents are ever so common as to warrant the use of a cache? There are certainly legitimate users of bittorrent, if you can limit the cache to legitimate content. But what torrents would ever be accessed so frequently by individual users on any given network that this would make sense? My employer's just ~300-400 customers strong, but I don't see how this could be useful to any ISP, given that the largest would probably only benefit if the caches were replicated and stored close to the users.

For larger ISPs (the type that sell off bandwidth to smaller ISPs, especially), this could be very useful for reducing bottleneck issues. The efforts to "legitimize" Bit Torrent could go hand and hand with the caching. Improve usage by removing legal threats and reducing ISP degredation. I'd like to see the WoW updater (broken piece of crap) get in on that. Movie trailers and (in my dreams) linux distros could be sped up as well as well (what about a BT based update system for linux? Interesting). Improving the efficiency of BT on all levels would help spur companies to use the technology more and help chip away at technophobic and ignorant policies and ideas.

Well, maybe not. People fight much more passionately for dumb things than sensible ones.

Re:Possible legal problems (2, Insightful)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862303)

On top of that, what torrents are ever so common as to warrant the use of a cache?

How many people download Linux ISOs using BT? If 30 people on one ISP download a new release, and it's using this, the ISP saves about 20-30GB and the users get the full 300KB/s they pay for instead of 2-3KB/s.

Re:Possible legal problems (1)

xenocide2 (231786) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862942)

Nevermind the occasional Linux ISO over BT. 20-30 gigabytes is chump change compared to the cost of a disk to store that data on. Instead, think Naruto [yhbt.mine.nu] . With over 2 thousand simultaneous users (and this is almost two weeks old!), it's likely a valuable net gain for them there. And if they go ahead with it, usage would spike even higher; many users find BT throttled or simply slow; if suddenly you were maxxing out that "6 mbps" line the cable company sold you for BT, I don't think you'd bother with DCC bots anymore. Scarywater used to host linux stuff on BT, but it's dwarfed by the sheer scale of their anime tracker.

But if ISPs are going to cache files like this, it pretty much eliminates the point of bittorrent.

Re:Possible legal problems (2, Informative)

cmeans (81143) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862211)

From the article:

...downloads will be accelerated instead of throttled. However, only for commercially licensed content.

Re:Possible legal problems (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862810)

Thank god, another use for the evil bit!

Or rather, content not having it set.

Re:Possible legal problems (4, Informative)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862279)

Given that a lot of torrents are copyrighted content, are ISPs really going to want to do this? The moment they start caching these files on their servers, they become a huge target for lawsuits.

They already do it with HTTP proxies and Usenet servers without getting sued. So long as they are simply complying with a content-neutral communications protocol - which is basically the whole point of an ISP, I don't see how they could be held accountable. Their business is to transport bits in a particular fashion. It's not up to them to decide which bits are "good" bits and which bits are "naughty" bits.

Re:Possible legal problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15862754)

It's not up to them to decide which bits are "good" bits and which bits are "naughty" bits.

You're right. That's what the Evil Bit [wikipedia.org] is for.

Re:Possible legal problems (3, Interesting)

ajs (35943) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862288)

First off, many torrents are copyrighted, but many more are not, and they're both a problem for ISPs, so yes they'll WANT to. The question is CAN they? I thik they can, but have to look over the details more.

If the system simply facilitiates the protocol blindly, then I don't see how they could be any more to blame for copyright violations than AOL's Web proxies. Sure, gigabytes of copyright violations move through AOL's proxies every day (and get cached to speed up downloads), but they literally don't have the processing power to try to make a distinction. Same goes for the ISPs and BitTorrent (or Gnutella, or any of the other high-bandwidth swarming download technologies).

Re:Possible legal problems (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862357)

Almost no data transmitted over BitTorrent is without copyright, as under the Berne Convention, works are copyrighted upon creation even when such rights are not claimed by the creator, or when the creator remains anonymous.

The only works which are not copyrighted are those in the public domain due to the expiration of their term, or those where the copyrights were explicitly waived. In other words, the vast minority of content transferred over BitTorrent.

Re:Possible legal problems (1)

Loonacy (459630) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862570)

"vast minority" ... Are you saying it's the large minority?

Re:Possible legal problems (1)

McDutchie (151611) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862483)

Given that a lot of torrents are copyrighted content, are ISPs really going to want to do this? The moment they start caching these files on their servers, they become a huge target for lawsuits.

Google's caches are full of copyrighted content. Are they a huge target for lawsuits? If not, why not?

Re:Possible legal problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15862534)

So they'll only be caching public domain works, GPL software and Creative Commons artwork?

Is that a bad thing?

Re:Possible legal problems (1)

tom's a-cold (253195) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862818)

Given that a lot of torrents are copyrighted content ...
I think I know what you're trying to say, but free and open-source software and content that's distributed over BitTorrent is also copyrighted content. I think you're trying to say "Copyrighted content distributed without the owner's consent" or something like that.

I don't like to see the notion reinforced that "copyright" == "RIAA/MPAA bait."

Re:Possible legal problems (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863459)

_ALL_ torrents are copyright to somebody (Well, at least here in the US).
The real issue is whether or not that somebody wants it distributed, doesn't care or is opposed to the distribution.

I don't know what the case is in other countries, but here as soon as a creative work is created and placed in some sort of physical medium (written, recorded or possibly encoded on a disk), then it is considered to be copyrighted.

That is not to say that all or even most of the work has been registered, that is an entirely different issue.

the next logical question... (3, Insightful)

zonker (1158) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862138)

when will this be implemented in azureus and utorrent? i appreciate bram's work immensely but i'm not too keen on his app...

JPC (2, Interesting)

eddy (18759) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863195)

Azureus already have LAN Peer Finder and JPC (Joltid Peer Cache [azureuswiki.com] ). Not sure how this is different from JPC on the practical level:

Joltid PeerCache (JPC) is a device employed by ISPs to reduce the huge external network bandwidth required to support today's P2P networks. It basically acts as a caching web proxy (like Squid), only for P2P file data.

Looks like by going its own way, the official client will once again create segmentation, just like with DHT.

Could an ISP would actually run this? (1)

SkOink (212592) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862143)

IANAL, but it doesn't really seem like an ISP could run this as an open, unprotected service. The legal rammifications to them of becoming more actively involved in torrenting are monstrous.

RIGHT ON, BECAUSE NO ISP RUNS A USENET SERVER... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15862271)


Re:Could an ISP would actually run this? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862672)

They've been doing it with Usenet for years. I've never heard of an ISP getting sued for content on Usenet, and there is some extremely questionable content on Usenet, beyond your usual pirated material. I think it's funny how the RIAA/MPAA are focusing their attention on all the newer technologies, when it seems to me like old technologies like Usenet and IRC are where the best sources are. Then again, my ISP recently got rid of Usenet, claiming that it wasn't popular enough, and they were cutting it out to bring other services. Maybe the RIAA/MPAA think people will just eventually abandon the old technologies.

Re:Could an ISP would actually run this? (1)

kv9 (697238) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862765)

I think it's funny how the RIAA/MPAA are focusing their attention on all the newer technologies, when it seems to me like old technologies like Usenet and IRC are where the best sources are.

*shhhhhh* what are you trying to DO man? you're gonna tip em off!

Pipes? (4, Funny)

norminator (784674) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862145)

Currently, Bittorrent traffic is suffering from bandwidth throttling ISP's that claim that Bittorrent traffic is cluttering their pipes.

You mean tubes.

Re:Pipes? (3, Funny)

Scorchmon (305172) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862359)

Not to be confused wtih a big truck. The internet is most definitely not a big truck. You could possibly confuse the two.

Re:Pipes? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15862367)

Currently, Bittorrent traffic is suffering from bandwidth throttling ISP's that claim that Bittorrent traffic is cluttering their pipes.
You mean tubes.
You mean straws .

Re:Pipes? (2, Funny)

MikeWasHere05 (900478) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862651)

Looks to me like some horses and poker chips could solve the ISPs problem.

Re:Pipes? (2, Funny)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862991)

NO! The poker chips will stack up and clog the porn! You meant lottery balls, my friend.

Re:Pipes? (1)

MarkRose (820682) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862954)

Currently, Bittorrent traffic is suffering from bandwidth throttling ISP's that claim that Bittorrent traffic is cluttering their pipes.

You mean tubes.

No, I'm pretty sure he mean hoses.

Way to pick a new protocol abbreviation (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15862148)

CDP = Cisco Discovery Protocol
http://www.javvin.com/protocolCDP.html [javvin.com]

Re:Way to pick a new protocol abbreviation (2, Funny)

Amouth (879122) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862323)

ahh just give it spanning tree's abv.. no one cares about it anyways

obligatory (3, Funny)

cli_rules! (915096) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862152)

Isn't torrents clogging up the tubes the real problem?

Re:obligatory (1)

JabberWokky (19442) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862212)

Care to explain the joke to the people who don't follow the latest digital fads and jokes?

--
Evan

Re:obligatory (1)

mspohr (589790) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862267)

Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska (previously famous for "the bridge to nowhere") is one of our leading idiots (and it really does take a lot to stand out in our current crop of Senators). He was recently featured on the Daily Show comparing the Internets to a bunch of "tubes". He was speaking as a no doubt well paid agent of the poor telecoms industry which needs to be able to extort money from Google, et al in order to pay for new tubes.

Re:obligatory (0, Flamebait)

chmod a+x mojo (965286) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862854)

well at least you said ONE of our leading idiots... THE leading idiot would get mad at you and fling poo everywhere if you mistook stevens as the leading idiot.

( P.S. yes, i am talking about the monkey that is the president.)

Re:obligatory (1)

Constantine Evans (969815) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862272)

Wikipedia has a reasonably comprehensive article on the term and its origins here [wikipedia.org] .

Personally, I believe that a better joke at Senator Stevens' expense could be had by noting that this might significantly speed up the transmission of the internets that his staff sends him.

Re:obligatory (1)

PhatMoFo (982890) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862242)

So send a lotto ball through?

Between the... (2, Funny)

Known Nutter (988758) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862178)

between the clogged tubes and the friggin SNAKES... on a PLANE! I'm not sure what to do...

No, ISP's won't get in trouble. (4, Insightful)

saleenS281 (859657) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862216)

It's no different than them hosting usenet servers. When contacted by copyright holders they are required to remove the infringing material(s). As long as they aren't actively monitoring what they're caching, they aren't required by law to do anything about it. +1 for legal precedence before lobbyists took over our government (at least the telecom portion).

Technical errata (2, Funny)

ElephanTS (624421) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862238)

Currently, Bittorrent traffic is suffering from bandwidth throttling ISP's that claim that Bittorrent traffic is cluttering their pipes.

Jeez, who writes this stuff? Must be clueless because everyone knows the internet uses tubes. Sheesh.

great idea (1)

ctime (755868) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862241)

Seems like CacheLogic will be providing hardware supporting this new CDP protocol (which, ahem, CISCO Discovery protocol also shares the same acronym). Neato. It's open source as well, so I'm sure we'll see ISP's deploying linux boxes running the CDP daemon..CacheLogic and BitTorrent didd good. One thing I noticed on the official press release was that the engine caches content, but specifically 'legitimate content'. Hmm..

Wow! Cached Bittorrents!!!! (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862265)

Now all the adolescents can download at twice the speed, a whole 2 KILOBYTES every decade.

Is this a good time not to say anything about that "port 119 service" thingy that we geeks are not supposed to ever mention?

Re:Wow! Cached Bittorrents!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15862309)

Is this a good time not to say anything about that "port 119 service" thingy that we geeks are not supposed to ever mention?

Shhhhhh!!!! You've said too much already!

However, however, however... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15862276)

"However, Bram Cohen, the creator of the bittorrent protocol and the developer of the mainline bittorrent client did not believe that encryption was the solution, and found (tohether with Cachelogic) a more ISP friendly alternative. However, this new and improved version is promising the opposite, downloads will be accelerated instead of throttled. However, only for commercially licensed content."

Well, I guess that takes care of the legal liability issue.

Also, *barf* at three sentences in a row starting with "However."

Torrents are major traffic hogs (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15862315)

I think the ISP's are right and that this particular program is doing a great time helping the Net to become clogged up. Not to extreme amounts ofcourse but all little bits help in the process.

I've used torrents for 2 periods; one time I only let it run 4 - 6 hours to grab some mediafiles and noticed how my bandwith consumption was actually threefold of what I'd normally use. To download a 60Mb (or so) I was at some point with 20Mb downloaded and approx. 60Mb uploaded. Since speed goes both ways (what goes up can't come down (at the same time anyway) and I had a maximum amount of data traffic to consider I decided to stop using the program after this session. Picture my surprise when I kept noticing 'torrent connects' on my firewall logs for the next 4 weeks! I really consider that a major overhead, especially if you consider that not every firewall blocks a port by giving out a response "sorry no access" but many, like mine, simply ignore the whole attempt alltogether. Thats bound not to work well with regards to timing.

And now that we're on the issue of firewalls. I think that the flexibility to change the used ports is something simply needed in such software. If you can change ftp ports, why wouldn't you be able to change torrent usage ports? However, it would have been a lot nicer if you could specify what port(s) you used so that others would stick to it. I don't like opening up a zillion ports on my firewall, so when I opened up the very basic range in my second session attempt (approx. 1/2 - 1 year later) I noticed that an increase of peers wasn't using the ports I specified to be using. In fact, even though I clearly indicated that I wanted the "default" range I kept torrent hits on ports never progagated (or so I assume) by my torrent client/server.

So my simple conclusion is that while the whole concept (spreading the load over multiple sources) is a smart one the reality shows a completely different picture where there is a massive amount of overhead being created. Either they look at the global picture (no need anymore to keep sending 60Mb (for example) from your site over and over again, that load is spread over many sites) or simply take a look at a very narrow picture (no problem if there is a server with a slow upload somewhere, there are many others being used in parallel) but it seems no one pays attention to the generated overhead.

Yes, its nice that you can grab a 60Mb file from many sites in parallel. But is it really as fast as people claim? Using several feeds means more overhead on your box with regards to dataprocessing. Then there's the bandwith itself to keep in mind, you only have so much to spare... But when I see that a 60Mb download actually generates 180Mb worth of data then I can't agree with people saying how much better a torrent is and that the spreading of data is actually a good thing. Sure, perhaps in a global picture... But for anything else (security, bandwith, etc.) I think its a poor concept.

Re:Torrents are major traffic hogs (1)

ichigo 2.0 (900288) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862692)

I don't know what client you have been using (or how old it was) but all the clients I've tried support the changing of ports, and all of them have also used only one port for incoming traffic. Now outgoing connections are a different matter, as you'll need one port for every peer you connect to, and I don't think you can select those ports on most clients. 4 weeks of incoming connections? That sounds like a bugged or very poorly designed client, that should not happen usually.

As for spreading of data, torrents are easily the second best way of obtaining legal material (and when a HTTP/FTP server is clogged torrents are the best way), and the best way (for us mundane non-sceners) of obtaining illegal stuff. If you download slower than you upload, then the swarm is usually too small and only has that much of capacity to give. Your client will always attempt to upload at maximum speed even if the others are incapable of giving you data at your maximum speeds, as it helps the data propagate faster and lessens the need for others to upload among themselves, enabling them to give you all of their capacity. So I'm guessing you were on a dying or unpopular torrent, that just didn't have enough bandwidth to go around.

Re:Torrents are major traffic hogs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15862812)

I would make three points in reply. One is that I have seen immense speeds on torrents. Its not uncommon for me to download at over 300KB/s on a busy torrent. That beats the newsgroup connection my ISP gives me. Second is that speed isn't the only factor. The built in hash checking and general reliability of labeling propel torrents far ahead of newsgroups or ftp sites or even some p2p programs in terms of usability and reliability. Third, bit torrent as a protocol doesn't seem to have been focused on efficiency for the end user though I believe it works out well in that respect. If I recall when Bram Cohen released it he was focused more on the bandwidth savings an organization such as Redhat or Blizzard could attain. Of course I don't know the man, thats just the impression I got from interviews and news storys at the time.

Re:Torrents are major traffic hogs (1)

DestroyAllZombies (896198) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862983)

Hey, cut this out! There's a limit on the number of reasonable conversations here and you're clogging the pipes.

Re:Torrents are major traffic hogs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15863113)

Clogging the [b]tubes[/b].

users should be more considerate (1)

cephyn (461066) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862347)

bittorrent causes a lot of traffic. I mean come on, the internet isn't like some sort of truck you can just dump stuff on. It's a series of tubes, man!

Locality awareness in the protocol is the answer (3, Interesting)

sdpinpdx (66786) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862459)

No ISP cooperation necessary. This has been tested experimentally a couple of times.

See http://del.icio.us/tag/p2p+locality [del.icio.us]

Re:Locality awareness in the protocol is the answe (2, Insightful)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863283)

A locality-aware swarming protocol can only discover other peers at the same ISP that are running at the same time, but a cache hosted by the ISP is always running and can serve content that was downloaded by another client earlier (sort of cooperative prefetching). Also, the bandwidth between the cache and a customer is usually going to be much higher than the bandwidth between two customers because of asymmetric connections.

Doesn't help us in the UK (1)

mattbee (17533) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862528)

Here in the UK, for an ISP to buy a 622Mb pipe into BT's network (our beloved monopoly telco) costs £1.5m per year. That's a wholesale price of £200 per Mb, which is over 10-20x more than the external bandwidth is going to cost. So even if your traffic is only going from your local cache direct to your customers, it still costs WAY more to send it that one last hop than it would to get the same amount of traffic from anywhere else on the internet.

Net result, those crappy bandwidth quotas / "bad boy" pipes / (un)fair use policies are staying.

I'm not sure how broadband economics work out in other countries, but here any high-bandwidth applications are still prohibitively expensive and it'll stay that way until Ofcom (our telecoms regulator) can finish their tortuous process of opening BT's network up to competition.

Is it just me or ? (1)

rmallico (831443) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862592)

Do we finally have a model where a software developer is working hand in hand with the ISP, End-Users and the Content (DRM) folks and managing to make all happy?

I just see this guy has someone who has a freaking clue as how best to manage the many touchpoints a product like his makes when out in the wild and is using his business/technical acumen to move things forward all the while making each layer 'happy'

Kudos to Bram and anyone contributing to the cause...

Stop twatting about (1)

Kamineko (851857) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862674)

Stop twatting about with all of this jiggery-pokery and deal with the real problem:

Get more and faster computers, more and faster networks and tubes that don't get clogged up every time somebody sends you an internet.

Folks are using the internet a lot, that's what they want, that's what you [ISPs] want: they pay you for that.

Don't oversell, now!

Is this really feasible? (1)

andrewmmc (773313) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862705)

I have to confess to not really knowing about this stuff, but all the torrents I download are used by relatively few people in isp terms ... does this not mean that to have any significant benefit to end users, the storage requirements of such a cache would be vast? The ISPs may as well trawl the internet for torrents and become seeders themselves. I bet the MPAA would prefer non obfuscating clients too.

Why not IP Multicast? (2, Interesting)

doshell (757915) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862728)

Wouldn't IP Multicast [wikipedia.org] be a more appropriate solution to this problem (and, for that matter, also for the whole lot of streaming content that flows on the 'net nowadays)? AFAIK it has been standardised for some time now, both for IPv4 for IPv6. Why, then, is it that multicast is virtually unused outside private networks?

Re:Why not IP Multicast? (2, Informative)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863230)

IP multicast creates a routing table entry for each group in every router that the group's packets flow through. If Internet users were allowed to create multicast groups, routers everywhere would run out of memory immediately.

Also, ISPs claim that they don't know how to bill for multicast.

cdp eh? (1)

sedawkgrep (142682) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862757)

Now I can do 'show cdp neighbor eth0' on my linux box and actually get something back!

Why don't they use multicasting? (4, Insightful)

mi (197448) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862827)

The sender can multicast the file in a loop. The recipients will get the pieces starting from whenever they started "listening" on the ongoing multicast, and then get the earlier parts, when the sender finishes and starts over again.

This is far more efficient, than for the sender to push the same data to each client in parallel.

Bram Cohen is wrong (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862958)

Encryption should be on EVERYTHING, be it legal or not.

21st century newsgroups done right. (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863029)

So you can just point and click as an end using tube consumer.
No more up/down pipes for the customer.
You do not host anymore.
You accept what they put up for you to consume.

Yeah! (1)

SlickMcSly (800954) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863112)

Let's make the ISPs liable for everything we download!!!! Yeah, that'll stop ISPs from censoring Bittorrent. Why didn't I think of that?

This solves the WRONG problem (1)

David E. Smith (4570) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863127)

The problem, at least at the small ISP I work for, isn't with out upstream connection; we've got bandwidth to spare in the NOC. For me, the problem is actually in the last mile. This would only work if I could buy about fifty of these caches, and deploy them at or near my POPs. I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that's not cost-effective for me.

Re:This solves the WRONG problem (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863251)

If a customer saturates their own last mile connection it's their own problem. If the last mile is shared (cable modems or wireless), why not just enable fair queueing and let them fight it out amongst each other?

has to be said (1)

Zashi (992673) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863434)

Yeah, finally, a way to keep the tubes from getting over filled.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...