Re: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010]

[Laird Popkin <laird () pando com>]

This raises an interesting issue - should optimization of p2p traffic (P4P) be based on "static" network information, 
or "dynamic" network information. It's certainly easier for ISP's to provide a simple network map that real-time 
network condition data, but the real-time data might be much more effective. Or even if it's not real-time, perhaps 
there could be "static" network maps reflecting conditions at different times of day?

Since P4P came up, I'd like to mention that the P4P Working Group is putting together another field test, where we can 
quantify issues like the tradeoff between static and dynamic network data, and we would love to hear from any ISP's 
that would be interested in participating in that test.  If you'd like the details of what it would take to 
participate, and what data you would get out of it, please email me.

Of course, independently of the test, if you're interested in participating in the P4P Working Group, we'd love to hear 
from you!

- Laird Popkin, CTO, Pando Networks
  email: laird () pando com
  mobile: 646/465-0570

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Harrowell" <a.harrowell () gmail com>
To: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <bortzmeyer () nic fr>
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:10:28 AM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: Re: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010]

Personally I consider P4P a big step forward; it's good to see Big Verizon
engaging with these issues in a non-coercive fashion.

Just to braindump a moment, it strikes me that it would be very useful to be
able to announce preference metrics by netblock (for example, to deal with
networks with varied internal cost metrics or to pref-in the CDN servers)
but also risky. If that was done, client developers would be well advised to
implement a check that the announcing network actually owns the netblock
they are either preffing in (to send traffic via a suboptimal route/through
a spook box of some kind/onto someone else's pain-point) or out (to restrict
traffic from reaching somewhere); you wouldn't want a hijack, whether
malicious or clue-deficient.

There is every reason to encourage the use of dynamic preference.


On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer () nic fr>
wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 02:02:21PM +0100,
>  michael.dillon () bt com <michael.dillon () bt com> wrote
>  a message of 46 lines which said:
>
> > This is where all the algorithmic tinkering of the P2P software
> > cannot solve the problem. You need a way to insert non-technical
> > information about the network into the decision-making process.
>
> It's strange that noone in this thread mentioned P4P yet. Isn't there
> someone involved in P4P at Nanog?
>
> http://www.dcia.info/activities/p4pwg/
>
> IMHO, the biggest issue with P4P is the one mentioned by Alexander
> Harrowell. After that users have been s.....d up so many times by some
> ISPs, will they trust this service?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
> NANOG () nanog org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG () nanog org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG () nanog org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog