Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Internet2 Plus P2P Equals...

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the movies-on-demand dept.

Bill, I'm lost in cyberspace... writes "News.com has an article up about a Direct Connected P2P network set up at universities which are on Internet2. This is majorly cool! More direct information is available at i2hub.com for those lucky enough to be located at a University with Internet2 access."

20 of 289 comments (clear)

  1. Keep it for research... by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know why "Internet2" is faster than the "commodity Internet" on college campuses? People weren't typically using "Internet2" for downloading movies and music. Just because the "Internet2" connections are less expensive, because they are funded through research grants, does not mean that students should be blowing large amounts of pointless traffic through it. The funding can get shut off just as "easily" as it came in.

    Officials at the central Internet2 project said they had no theoretical objection to the students' action, at least from the strictly technological side. The network was developed to spur innovation wherever it arises, much as users of the original academic networks developed e-mail and chat features, a representative for the project said.

    Yes, I think that P2P programs can be considered research and should even be developed on fast networks like this. I just don't think that students should take advantage of the *currently* open nature of the network just because they can.

    Don't ruin it for everyone else like *we* did back in the late 1990s just because you want free music. Instead of fighting with the RIAA by downloading their music shut them off by not listening to it at all. Please support bands that allow the free taping and distribution of their music (see link in my signature below).

    1. Re:Keep it for research... by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I guess that is confusing...

      No, I don't think you should use Internet2 for downloading music. It should, for now, remain a research oriented network. Sadly, because of traffic being transparently routed via Internet2 to other schools on the network you wouldn't know you are doing it.

      I suppose it's just as much the fault of those that setup the network as it is of the students that are using it.

    2. Re:Keep it for research... by Mr.+Neutron · · Score: 4, Funny
      Yes, I think that P2P programs can be considered research and should even be developed on fast networks like this.

      I would like to do research on a P2P app that uses a UDP variant (I call it "PacketBlast Technology") for its underlying transport. This app would be distributed to all students and faculty at all Internet2-connected universities. This would be totally decentralized - every client would also be a "supernode" and would exchange meta-info with "PacketBlast Technology" as well.

      "PacketBlast" would build off of UDP, only with connection management and guaranteed delivery. Unlike TCP, PacketBlast initially begins connections assuming absurdly high bandwidth, then scales down the window size until the dropped-packet rate falls to around 10% - this ensures maximum utilization of the network and an overall positive experience for the end users.

      I think this would be great to test out on Internet2.

      --
      dinner: it's what's for beer
    3. Re:Keep it for research... by jandrese · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is justification. If you have this great fast connection with restrictions that make it useless to most people, then the beancounters are going to notice that you're paying a hefty sum each month for an effectively unused resource. They're going to start demanding their money back so they can spend it on a bigger football stadium or something. By loading the network, even with "unworthy" P2P traffic, you can justify the cost by pointing out that the network is being used and needs to remain.

      It's a common problem with publicly funded resources. You _must_ use it or you lose it.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    4. Re:Keep it for research... by Mr.+Neutron · · Score: 4, Informative
      It's very easy to build guaranteed delivery on top of UDP, though. You just have to have the receiving end send ACK packets. This is how tFTP works.

      The reason this would be such a bad thing is, while TCP has "fairness" built in, so that one connection doesn't monopolize the network, UDP has no such mechanism - in fact, what I described in the parent is the opposite of fairness: each connection tries to hog as much bandwidth as possible. This app would, effectively, cause Inet2 to grind to a halt.

      There's a reason why network admins hate UDP apps.

      --
      dinner: it's what's for beer
    5. Re:Keep it for research... by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's a better way to figure out how to get an abserdly fast connection rate...

      First... broadcast a request for the file (specified by a hash value, just like BitTorrent does it.) to the local subnet. If anybody hears this request and responds with an "I've got it!"... bingo. There's no need to go to the external network. This file is already locally available, so copy the file using a LAN-protocol that assumes insane speeds and little packet loss. If nobody answers, you've wasted less than a kilobyte of local bandwidth and you can move on...

      Now, send an HTTPS request for a list of the people known to be making the file available to the main tracker-server. However, there's a little trickery at this stage. Instead of just returning a flat list, the tracker-server notices the "apparent IP address" where the request came from. For those directly connected to the Internet, this is their true IP address... however, for those going through a NAT situation, this is the outwardly-visible IP address that speaks for the true client. The list is sorted by whatever server's apparent IP address most bitwise matches the requester's address. This leads to some interesting situations...
      - If there's a server with the same apparent IP address as the client IP address... this means that the content is being offered up within the local network again, just not on the same subnet. There's no reason to involve the NAT any further... we just need to introduce two computers that are behind the the same NAT/Firewall to each other. Again, a local-area transfer protocol gets pulled out.
      - Now we start getting to the level where we have to assume things. For example, it's rather safe to assume that a subnet whose IP space is one, two or three bits away from my subnet is most likely to be "somewhat local" to me. Those are the servers that get tested first for connection speed... and you keep going down the list until you have relable connections to enough servers to end up maxing-out your incoming bandwidth. At that point, you'll have your file shortly.

      An interesting point is that this will end up detecting most i2-links because there's a cluster of colleges in the 128.x.x.x IP space because those were the first 3-octet ranges handed out and the colleges who were the first in line to get those were also the ones who were first to sign up for internet2. So, just by giving preference to those servers who are within the same first-eight-bits of IP space as you, you're more likely to find a faster link...

  2. RIAA by scifience · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now the files will move so fast the RIAA won't have time to see them! It's funny, laugh!

  3. Internet2 + P2P2 = by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    RIAA2

  4. Internet2 Plus P2P Equals... by manavendra · · Score: 4, Funny

    mostly a lot of spyware and adware.

    --
    http://efil.blogspot.com/
  5. Fun yes; Research no. by YankeeInExile · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Clearly the development of this application falls under the purview and purpose of Internet2 - whereas the use of it probably does not.

    No matter how you want to dress it up with rhetoric, the wide-spread broadcast of other peoples' material without permission is -- under current statute -- unlawful, and leaves one liable to civil and possible criminal prosecution.

    What never ceases to amaze me is how many students think they can poke at the bears with impunity, and then come crying when they get a claw across the face.

    --
    How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
  6. Special app by Apreche · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why is there a special p2p for I2? Here at RIT we have I2 and it just works automatically. If you try to connect to an I2 computre the router does everything transparently. So whenever we connect to another college student with a p2p app I2 is used automagically.

    --
    The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
  7. chat at light speed! by jerky42 · · Score: 5, Funny

    From the article:

    the network has drawn thousands of students from universities around the country to trade files and chat at speeds that far exceed what even ordinarily swift campus networks can provide.

    Thank God! I guess Instant Messaging on this network really is instant. No more of those 100 ms delays!

    --
    The strong do what they can, while the weak suffer what they must.
  8. Congest it by pubjames · · Score: 5, Interesting


    It would be very interesting if the students managed to completely congest "internet2". I'm serious - if they do it then it demonstrates that we would still need more bandwidth.

    1. Re:Congest it by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or just a proof that given time, bandwidth usage will fill to whatever pipe it's given no matter how fat a pipe you supply. Afterall, as our hard drives got bigger, so did the programs we were given to store on them...

  9. Social network, not a tech one... by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is purely a social networking system rather than a technical one. If I'm on an i2-enabled conenction, and you're on an i2-enabled connection, then any direct connection between me and you over any protocol is going to route over an i2 bandwidth link rather than going out over the open Internet link between our two sites...

    Really, this is like when the Starr Report against then-president Clinton, and all sorts of ISPs who don't do content mirroring did a mirror for that document, since it was long and going to be frequenly downloaded that day. By keeping that traffic local on their own network, their outgoing Internet line was freed up for other traffic.

    Knowing who is closer to your network-wise, which isn't aways the shortest physical difference or lowest number of network hops, but the one who has the most available bandwidth on the path that leads from you to them and back, when given a choice between mirrors is always very useful.

    So, really, i2hub's goal is to just point out where useful content is on i2 rather than change any routing tables...

  10. Adware? by dema · · Score: 5, Informative

    I went to the website and clicked the link for the Mac OS X software. The title on the download page reads:

    Direct Connect for Mac OS X 1.1.0
    Author:NeoModus
    Program Type:Adware

    Interesting...

  11. Re:MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    yes, save the bandwitdth for those of us who are professional researchers of MP3s and porn

  12. Watch Out by pimpinmonk · · Score: 4, Informative

    A common misconception is that this hub is "safe" because it is on I2. This is not so. People have been sued from using i2hub. No, I will not say who, but yes, I will say it's happened.

    Filesharing is just bad. Of course I do it anyway. But if you look at your campus' bandwidth usage, some ludicrous number like 95% will be p2p traffic :-/

  13. *we* Didnt ruin anything by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It was the over commercialization of the Internet that has 'ruined' things for us.

    Not that some people are sharing music and video.

    But then again, sounded like you have an agenda to push.. so nevermind.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  14. bummer by sir_cello · · Score: 5, Insightful


    I, but probably others, realised not long ago that it's rapidly approaching the point at which the characteristics of "Internet V2 (post WWW)" can be ascertained, and certainly apart from high speed, one of them as the death of unidirectional WWW.

    The problem with HTTP is (as you see with the slashdot effect) that there is no inherent mass-distribution/replication in it. What will be the next big technology will be some sort of fluid merge between HTTP, P2P (BT, etc), FTP, to bring a real massively distributed content layer. Built into this protocol would be multicast as well (in a way, P2P is inherently multicast).

    This means that when you browse the web, your browsers transport layer is really acting as real-time P2P, and your network ISP would install seamless "content caching" (e.g. akamani style) as part of the network. Effectively, there needs to be a replacement of HTTP/TCP as a new "DTP" (distributed transport protocol).