It is all very interesting. Why we did not have such research reported on
last NANOG meeting?
also our grad student thomas studying p2p traffic tells me
that there is no sense of localization in most (if not all)
p2p networks; so i am more likely to download a movie from an
Interesting. Are
Alexei Roudnev wrote:
Interesting. Are there any p2P systems which optimize traffic by localizyng
it, when possible?
Most p2p applications keep the connections which provide data at better
speed and drop the ones which don´t. The effectiveness of this criteria
varies from application to
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Sean Donelan wrote:
http://www.itic.ca/DIC/global/2003/09/Top_ISPs_by_P2P_Activity.jpg
Average ratio of active P2P nodes / Available IPs.
That doesn't have much to do with number of bytes transferred, right?
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 09:32:14PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 06:15:53PM -0700, Michel Py wrote:
Michel Py wrote:
BitTorrent is a third of p2p traffic in Sweden? Wow. In
the US it is a small blip on the radar.
Petri Helenius wrote:
Should hold water
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Walter De Smedt wrote:
How are ISPs monitoring P2P traffic these days? Monitoring based on
Netflow/cflowd data and fixed port numbers for application
classification doesn't seem to do the trick anymore as more P2P
applications use random port numbers or even use port
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
you can also be fairly accurate from the flow data.. eg genuine web traffic is
short small transfers, P2P is long-lived flows of continous high usage
In the long run, there is no way to accurately determine what kind of
traffic everything is, and
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
you can also be fairly accurate from the flow data.. eg genuine web traffic is
short small transfers, P2P is long-lived flows of continous high usage
In the long run, there is no way to accurately determine what kind
Walter De Smedt wrote:
The next step in P2P recognition seems to be deep packet inspection with
signature based detection. The major problem here is scalability - I
don't see some device analyzing 1G, the typical uplink capacity of
Internet gateways in a medium SP network, of traffic at layer 7.
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:00:32 EDT, David Lesher [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
location is off any faultline, or away from other malady, that might effect
its
main servers datacenter or connectivity. Problem is, they also want them as
physically close as possible.
http://www.havenco.com/
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, David Lesher wrote:
http://www.havenco.com/
http://chris.nodewarrior.org/reviews/DefCon11/Lackey.html
Does anyone actually know of any machines hosted on HMS Roughs[1]?
www.havenco.com is not, it appears. Of the 3/4 NSes listed in whois
for havenco.com, only two are
10 matches
Mail list logo
