Re: BitTorrent (Was: Re: [Isms] ISMS charter broken- onus should be on WG to fix it)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 16-sep-2005, at 1:00, Michael Thomas wrote:

  I'm not sure; maybe it's really a mutual non-admiration
  society, and everybody's happy? But it's an elephant
  insofar as it's pretty darn big trafficwise, and the
  fact that ietf doesn't seem concerned?

Why should the IETF be concerned about traffic?

Now of course that doesn't mean our amateur protocol designers get it right every time... For instance, when you become a Gnutella "ultrapeer" you'll very likely create some nasty congestion in the outgoing direction of your ADSL or cable connection because when you receive one request, the program wakes up and sends out copies of that request over several dozen TCP sessions at the same time, which will invariably overload the buffers at some point between the host and the DSL/cable connection.

we're layering
  more and more stuff onto the net too -- like voip -- that
  are pretty sensitive to average expectations (I'm thinking
  about things like Vonage, not managed services). Is that
  a danger for the overall internet architecture?

Anyone who thinks he or she is going to meet real time constraints over a random path across the internet that spans multiple ASes has more problems than the IETF can possibly fix.

And no, I don't think it's reasonable to restrict p2p bulk data transfer to accommodate voice over the public internet.

(Maybe at some point people from Apple would like to share the results of them setting a DSCP code point / type of service in the IP header of voice packets.)

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]