Closed Gnutella System to Prevent Bandwidth Hogs

prostoalex writes: "Salon.com is running a story on Gnutella developers contemplating the creation of a closed or authorization-only system to prevent bandwidth hogging. Turns out, numerous applications, including Xolox and QTraxMax employ quering algorithms that are capable of bringing the network traffic to a halt. While it gets better download speeds for the users of the aforementioned applications, the damage to network traffic as a whole is substantial."

Comments

Self-policing network

[Anonymous Coward]

How about implementing per-node policing using a credit system like gnunet? (http://http://www.gnu.org/software/GNUnet/)

Nodes individually keep track of the behavior of their neighbors. Bad or expensive behavior like out-of-spec activity or excessive querying lowers the 'credit' of the node. Good behavior like answering queries increases a node's credit. Credit determines the probability that a node's queries will be answered or passed along and the priority with which they will be treated. Abusively written clients will eventually be ignored out of the network.

GNL

[TheSHAD0W]

I was a part of the Gnutella development clique a while back, and had made a few proposals on improvements to Gnutella clients.

One such proposal, GNL, was to provide a way to define alternate Gnutella networks from the main system, and include ways to limit their behavior. Another proposal, GNV, was a method for administering these networks, and said administration could be performed anonymously.

Many people liked my ideas, until I made the mistake of mentioning that the end result would probably be differentiation of Gnutella into several networks, each specializing in different types of files; it would be like making Gnutella into IRC, with separate server networks providing different flavors of service. I also mentioned that I thought the original Gnutellanet would wither on the vine. They looked on this with horror and dropped my suggestions.

*shrug* I dunno. Considering that, at the time, the Gnutellanet was scaling itself into bloated nonoperation, I thought splitting the Gnet into different specialty networks was a good idea. Clients could even log onto more than one Gnet at a time.

I'd rather see this as an option

[ShaunC]

I agree with you that some of the more abusive clients are getting out of control. I don't agree with blocking them outright, though. Gnutella is where it is because it's an open network and an open protocol; I think we have to leave it that way if we expect any future genius to appear on the network. Closing things up and locking the doors, these aren't the appropriate solutions IMO.

I think filtering of abusive apps should be done on the client side of the servent equation. The biggest problems I've seen lately don't involve Xolox specifically, but users of varying servents. People who queue up hundreds of different files to download at a time. People using programs which ignore "Not Shared" or "Refused" replies, and continue to pound my box looking for files that don't exist.

I was out of town for a few days last week (all computers turned off, except for my router box). When I came back, I fired up my Gnutella program. Without even connecting to the network, I was immediately serving uploads. That means that someone was trying to download from me for three full days while a) the files were not shared, b) Gnutella wasn't running, and c) the freaking computer wasn't even turned on! Come on, servent authors: pay some attention when you get "Refused" or "Not Shared" responses. Drop such files from the queue after 2 or 3 failed tries, don't leave them sitting there for eternity.

I want a setting that says "drop all packets from hosts who request a no-longer-shared file." I want a setting that says "drop all packets from hosts who attempt to download while the program is running but not connected to the network." I want a setting that says "drop all packets from hosts who send download requests more than $TIMES per minute." My per-user upload limit is set at 1, so someone queueing up 200 files at a time generates an enormous amount of protocol overhead. It might be 5 hours before that user gets all of his 200 files, all the while he's sending a constant barrage of packets which accomplish nothing.

Gnutella is an open network. Yes, we do need to do something about read-only clients, but I think it should be up to the people to decide what gets done. Provide the users with the appropriate filters and let the majority determine what behavior is good vs. bad.

Shaun

It's called "The Tragedy of the Commons" (1833)

[kriegsman]

This problem was first identified and analized in 1833 by Willian Lloyd. It went something like this:

The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component.

1. The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly + 1.

2. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decisionmaking herdsman is only a fraction of - 1.

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another.... But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit -- in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

The problem in general arises when you've set up a situation where if each user acted in both a rational and self-interested way, the system overall would collapse for all the users.

When designing any kind of multi-user system, it's critical to plan for the "what if all the users (or half of them) suddenly got very selfish." What results are things like disk quotas: central-system-enforced limits on individual behavior.

In a system like the gnutella network, where there is no 'central system' to enforce 'community-minded' behavior, the eventual collapse of the system can be predicted as a function of overall population, presuming that there are always a few people who are more selfish than the rest.

Centralized systems like Napster actually had an advantage in that the centralized servers could establish and enforce 'fairness' policies that kept selfish users from triggeringa 'Tragedy of The Commons'.

-Mark