Re: Comments on LARIAT and Comcast not same problem

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

________________________________________
From: Jeff Porten [civitan () jeffporten com]
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 1:58 PM
To: David Farber
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:     Comments on  LARIAT and Comcast not same problem

On Feb 17, 2008, at 3:11 PM, Brett Glass wrote:

> The default is for it to do so. And how many gamers, thirsting for
> the latest World of Warcraft update, would change that default (if
> they
> knew how)?

I've used over a dozen different BitTorrent clients; most of these DO
NOT EXPOSE their defaults to the users or allow the user to modify
them.  The ones that do clearly differ in their default settings.  So
your argument is provably incorrect.  There is no "the default", and I
strongly suspect that if you were to download a dozen or so BitTorrent
programs, you'd find that the defaults are set rather reasonably.

Secondly, in the "unprovably incorrect" category, anyone doing a
casual search on "how do I use this BitTorrent thing" -- which nearly
everyone has to do as the software tends towards the complex -- will
come across MANY web documents that say, "do not do X, Y, or Z, as
this is bad for the network." [1]  These are usually explained in
terms of "ultimately bad for your download speed", so it speaks to
user self-interest rather than trying to inspire hearts and bunnies in
the user.

[1]: <http://www.azureuswiki.com/index.php/Good_Torrents>

> Alas, there is. Even if you throttle your BitTorrent client, your
> system
> (and your ISP) will be beaten on relentlessly with requests for the
> material. Day and night.

The largest swarms I've ever seen have about 40,000 members; the
medians can range from 50 to 2,000 members depending upon whether
you're grabbing the latest hot release, or joining an older swarm.
According to <http://wiki.theory.org/
BitTorrentSpecification#Messages>, the messages in question are mostly
measured in single-digit bitlengths, so presumably these require a
single IP packet in each direction.  The only large bandwidth
requirements are in response to the request packets, which is
PRECISELY where the throttles come into play.

So I have difficulty with your characterization that your system is
"beaten on"; it seems to me that a properly throttled BitTorrent
client would be kinder to networks than, say, RSS readers and other
glatt kosher network apps.  Likewise, I note that iTunes podcast
downloads and various network file transfers invariably max out
available local bandwidth, and for some reason no one is complaining
loudly about these -- despite the fact that they are substantively
similar to *unthrottled* torrents.

> Long after your own download is done. And unless
> you "relent" by not doing P2P, you are still taking your ISP's
> bandwidth
> for a third party.

No.  If I am choosing to share a portion of my hard drive, that is a
FIRST party use of network resources, and I am the person paying the
bills.  If I choose to share these with anonymous third parties,
that's my choice -- I happen to find it gratifying when a stranger
reads my website, and resent an implication that if I don't know my
correspondent, he is somehow stealing my ISP's resources.

> The entire point is that your software cares not whether any network
> is "overloaded," and seeks to bypass all of the safeguards against
> congestion which are part of the TCP/IP protocol suite. It is thus
> abusive to the network.

Actually, Brett, my particular software has rather sophisticated
mechanisms to judge whether a network is busy.  [1]  Admittedly there
are also instructions to avoid traffic shaping [2], which to my mind
ranks up there with the global port 80 block that ISPs imposed on all
users after Code Red was released.  That said, and as you well should
know, these are applications riding on TOP of the TCP/IP layer, not
hacks to the TCP layer itself.  If there is anything an end user can
do to hack your TCP/IP layer, the fault is not with the clever or
clueless user, the fault is with the programmer who left such glaring
security holes in your routers and servers.

[1]: <http://www.azureuswiki.com/index.php/ConfigAuto-Speed>
[2]: <http://www.azureuswiki.com/index.php/Avoid_traffic_shaping>

> One of the most effective P2P mitigation tactics
> we've tried is to slow down the user's connection to compensate for
> the
> excessive duty cycle of P2P applications, keeping the net load (in
> gigabits per month) imposed on the network by the user down to a
> reasonable level. It's the equivalent of, say, limiting the number of
> plates that a customer at a buffet can fill.

Yes, and this is what so profoundly angers your educated customers.
We know that ISPs have *always* worked on the model that a few users
will make high use of their connections, but the vast majority of
their users will contribute high profits with low usages.  This model
dates back to modem banks and dial-up.

There are two ways ISPs can respond:

1) the ethical way is to say, "due to changes in our business model,
we are raising our prices/changing our policies/imposing caps."  This
gives their customers a chance to review their contracted relationship
and decide whether to support the ISP or leave for a better competitor.

2) the unethical way is to modify their infrastructure such that they
can screw over their customers in ways that they hope won't be
noticed.  I happen to run a bandwidth meter in my menu bar, but ISPs
very well know that most people don't, and that ignorance is their
opportunity.

As best as I can tell, ISPs to date have overwhelmingly opted for
option #2.  It is my opinion that the attitude of trying to put one
over the ISPs is largely due to the obviously poor relationship
between provider and client.

> The flaw in this scheme is that it still lets abusers take
> bandwidth from us for the benefit of third parties, such as Blizzard
> and Vuze, without compensation.

Just so I'm clear -- the "abusers" are people who pay you money, yes?
I want to make sure that I'm understanding the terminology you're
using for your customers.

I run two businesses, and I routinely fire my underperforming
customers and clients when they are more trouble than they are worth.
The difference is, I do this politely, and I don't call them names or
imply that they are thieves for using the services I have promised them.

Best,
Jeff Porten


-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com