Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

P2P Through Firewalls

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the file-in-hand-worth-two-in-the-network dept.

An anonymous submitter writes "A few stream-through-firewall applications have been announced recently. p2pnet has an interview with Ian Clarke about his new 'Dijjer' program, which promises to reduce bandwidth requirements from HTTP servers by transparently distributing the load. Slyck.com has an article about LimeWire's new version that offers firewall-to-firewall transfers (code here). [Both Dijjer and LimeWire are GPL'd.] There's also been a lot of discussion on the p2p hackers list about reliable UDP transfers."

4 of 220 comments (clear)

  1. But... by remigo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But... I thought that peer-to-peer sharing was horribly immoral and only used for warez and porn!!

    Seriously, though, this is the kind of thing that I desperately wish mainstream media/Congress paid more attention to. It's only the lawsuits and illegal uses that get covered because that's what sells ads.

  2. Reliable... udp... transfers? by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It strikes me that one could set up a server to cache udp requests and serve them back out to the attached/requested clients reliably. However, one must wonder why not just use TCP, which is guaranteed to be reliable. IMHO, What you'd end up with using UDP is a LOT of "did you get it? yes/no"-type network traffic between peers.

    --
    stuff |
    1. Re:Reliable... udp... transfers? by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      TCP errs on the side of caution. The failure mode of TCP on congested links is to stop. These new UDP transfer protocols have a "damn the network, just send my bits!" attitude that could be bad for the health of the Internet as a whole. The failure mode of a NACK protocol is to flood the pipe with data that never reaches its destination, while the NACK packets never reach back to the source. Widespread use of unproven UDP transfer protocols with bad congestion control could flood the entire Internet with uncontrolled traffic, making it impossible to establish a TCP connection because of high packet loss, and reducing throughput for all. All in the name of getting a few percent more speed on long links. These people should be working together through the IETF to publish RFCs on a real replacement for TCP, not writing their own vigilante protocols on top of UDP.

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
  3. Dijjer is self defeating by AIX-Hood · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "No "Tracker" necessary, works with virtually any URL This is a big one, Dijjer will work with almost any direct URL, the content publisher doesn't need to lift a finger - they may not even realise that people are using Dijjer to save their bandwidth costs! As the that guy who runs filerush, I'm always looking to move to whatever will keep the files free flowing with zero hassle. The problem is that this method just shot itself in the foot. So you're saying that I have to serve my 350 meg new game demo on my regular http server and Dijjer users will P2P it without my knowledge. That's great.. but what about the other million users who have no idea about Dijjer, and just hammered my download and therefore my site in extinction because I can't tell who's who? Now nobody gets the file.