Fullquote, for the cc Hi Mike, Harold, *,
What do you think about adding the ipv6 tracker? ciao Christian On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Bernhard Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm the reporter of issue #108301 > <http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=108301> and I've been > asked by cloph (sorry, don't know your real name) to bring this up on this > list. > > First of all, for reference my initial post to ease the media switch: > >> as most of you probably know IPv6 is the upcoming successor of the current >> internet protocol IPv4. I have recently started to look into the >> Bittorrent over >> IPv6 situation (my summary is available at >> http://www.birkenwald.de/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=projects:ipv6-bittorrent ). >> >> Currently, while most Bittorrent clients are IPv6-capable most trackers >> are not. >> This makes it very hard to impossible for clients to find IPv6 peers on >> their own. >> >> The Bittorrent Multitracker extensions, which are implemented in almost >> any >> client known today (and still provide a full backup path for clients not >> implementing it) allow multiple trackers to be specified for a torrent >> (but you >> already know that, since you are using it). We have recently done this for >> the >> conference recordings of 26c3 (a big german hacker conference) and had >> good >> results. Therefor I'd like to ask you to put an IPv6-only tracker into the >> multitracker list, if possible as an additional primary group. If there is >> a >> need I would volunteer to run that (see the URL) and I also have a few >> very >> high-speed seeders (>= 1Gbps) on native v6 that can help out to seed. But >> as >> stated before, this would only be additional, not replacing the current >> ones. > > and the answer by cloph: > >> 1st of all: None of the tracker servers used as of today has an AAAA >> record, >> thus adding ipv6 support on the main trackers won't be added soon. (if you >> can >> reach the tracker only using IPv4, there's not much point in having it >> deal IPv6) >> >>> The Bittorrent Multitracker extensions, >> >> A note on that one: The OOo tracker network doesn't only use multitracker >> enabled torrents, but the trackers OOo uses are as well linked with each >> other. >> >> I.e. the tracker themselves exchange peer information, every tracker knows >> about >> the whole swarm. It is not only "dumb" multitracker where the client picks >> independent-of-each-other trackers where each tracker manages a completely >> seperated swarm. >> >> I'm not sure whether adding an additional, not tracker-link aware tracker >> would >> be a good idea, as it would fragment the swarm. (i.e. I would perfer the >> ipv6 >> users take part in the ipv4 swarm instead) (swarm is relatively small >> >> But please bring this to the [email protected] mailing list >> for >> more input. Adding another tracker would just be a change in the php >> script on >> http://borft.student.utwente.nl/~adrian/bt.php - and the OOo torrents are >> available via rsync, so you could keep your tracker up-to-date with that. >> But since neither of the main server is IPv6-capable, you would have to >> run the >> corresponding seed as well. >> >> Sum up: technically adding another tracker is not much of a deal, the >> question >> is whether it is a good thing to do or not. > > > Regarding the multi-tracker extensions, cloph is absolutely right that if > you follow the standard to the letter adding a seperate IPv6 tracker to the > existing list could fragment the swarm. > > BEP-12 <http://bittorrent.org/beps/bep_0012.html> has been designed with > clients in mind that would only connect to a single tracker at once. OOo is > currently using a style similar to the second example in the BEP for > loadsharing. > > [['http://borft.student.utwente.nl:6969/announce', > 'http://core-tracker.enlist-a-distro.net:9800/announce', > 'http://core-tracker.depthstrike.com:9800/announce', > 'http://clients-tracker.enlist-a-distro.net:9800/announce', > 'http://clients-tracker.depthstrike.com:9800/announce', > 'http://www.ooodev.org:6969/announce']] > > Since a client would only connect to one of the trackers they have to share > information amongst each other (tracker-link), otherwise the swarms would > split. > > Adding a dual-stacked or IPv6-only tracker to that tracker list is indeed a > bad idea, since a dual-stacked client might end up on the IPv6 tracker only > handling IPv6 peers. This would cause the swarm to split. > > What I'm proposing is adding an IPv6-only tracker as a second primary group, > much like the third example in the BEP. Something like this: > > [['http://borft.student.utwente.nl:6969/announce', > 'http://core-tracker.enlist-a-distro.net:9800/announce', > 'http://core-tracker.depthstrike.com:9800/announce', > 'http://clients-tracker.enlist-a-distro.net:9800/announce', > 'http://clients-tracker.depthstrike.com:9800/announce', > 'http://www.ooodev.org:6969/announce'], > ['http://ipv6onlytracker:6969/announce']] > > According to standard clients are supposed to try each of the trackers in > the first list (the official IPv4 trackers), and only if none of them answer > it should bother to try the second list (the IPv6-only tracker). > > This would probably do no good for IPv6 at all, since the clients would only > try the tracker if all IPv4 trackers are down or unreachable. Which is > pretty unlikely unless you are in an IPv6-only environment. > > But here is where the standard and reality deviate. Most Bittorrent clients > I have seen in the wild recently (µTorrent, Azureus/Vuze, Transmission since > 1.80, libtorrent (Rakshasa and Rasterbar)) just connect to all primary > groups simultaneously. In this case these clients would connect to one of > the v4-trackers in the first group _and_ to the v6-tracker in the second > group, effectively getting peers for both address families. > > Regarding seeding, I am in control of at least three systems in different > networks that could seed IPv6 with native 100++ Mbps. And I know of at least > five more ISP networking people with the same or better capabilities that > could do the same within hours if possible (we IPv6-freaks are a big family > and we want to see traffic :-) ). Regarding the v6-tracker, the one I > already run (see my initial bugreport) is there and will not go away, so > feel free to use it if you like, either with my public DNS name or with an > alias in any domain you wish. > > What do you think about it? > > Best Regards, > Bernhard > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
