Subject: [p2prg] IETF 73 (raw) minutes

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:50:27 -0500

All: Here are the raw minutes I took for p2prg during the
IETF 73 meeting.

Agenda bashing

Volker introduced the WG
  - Resurrected and re-chartered
  - Went through the new charter
  - Looking for new research work and existing WGs and BoFs
    related to p2prg

Enrico Marocco, Mythbustering P2P Traffic Localization

Distinguished the term "localization".
Huge interest in academia and industry
Caching is hard to do w/ p2p localization
Traffic shaping possible, but not good for user interests
Discussed how peer selection is done in p2p applications -
  agnostic to network topology and depends on tit-for-tat in
  BitTorrent, for instance.  RTT, jitter estimation are other
  techniques.
p2p localization wants to do better than average.
Research papers show it is effective, at least in field trials.
Don't know how it will be in the wild.
This draft takes a look at various issues discussed in many
fora.
This draft needs to be moved in a community effort from this
group.  Please provide input.
Outlined the myths -- 6 of them.
Went through the myths:
1) Reduced cross-domain traffic: Comcast, TU-Berlin, etc. show
  reduction in outgoing traffic and inbound traffic.  This myth is
  beleived to be confirmed.
2) Increased application performance: 4 references show that
  this is true.  2 references show some disadvantages.
3) ...
Time running out -- author wants to get a sense from the room on
if this work is worth pursuing.
Stas Khirman: Yes, useful work.  Good to have info in one single
  place.
Richard Yang: Yes.  Have a student doing "adaptive localization".

Henning Schulzrinne, Security Issues and Solutions in P2P systems
  for RT communications.

Focus is on RT communications.

Went through attacker motivation: could be political, financial, or
for fun.

Attacker resources is primarily minting identities.

Attack timing: cracker joins, proves herself and then goes rogue.

Reviewed p2p for RT communications.
  - map names to other identifiers.
  - provide computational services (proxying and relaying)
  - store data

Went through file sharing vs. RT communications slide.

Admission control

In telecom systems, it is hard to identify malicious peers.  Rogue
file detection is much easier.

RT systems need just enough node to carry the load for data
computation.

Summary: Avoid centralization at all costs may not matter for RT
  services.

Steven LeBlond

2 open questions about BT locality
  - how far can we push it
  - how many savings can you get?

Went through methodology.  Ran experiments w/ upto 10K peers.
Presented experimental results.

Zoran D: Locality is not a simple solution to p2p traffic mgmt.

Most questions were answered in the previous talk.
Methodlogy was the same (mostly) as the previous talk in how they
determined how many IP addresses in an AS.

Question: What happens to those ASes where there aren't too many
peers?  What algorithms will they use?

Can larger ASes live with the localization algorithm that works
in smaller ASes?

Stas Khirman, Public tracker scraping.

Scraped three trackers - TPB, Demonoid, and Mininova.  TPB has
1.7M torrents, Demonoid has 11K and Mininovas has 4K.

Presented slides on distribution for Hellboy DVD on TPB.

Henning: Can the authors of the three works here get together
and agree on the definition of a CDF so we can normalize the
data.

Richard: All studies so far focused on ASes.  Would be good to get
data per ISP, for instance.

Richard Yang, Efficient p2p design using in-network data lockers.

We need to focus on how to reduce the traffic on the last mile.

For downlink we do not want to reduce the traffic.  We are only
interested in the uplink, which is usually the bottleneck.

Must introduce storage capabilities in the network.  How?  Using
p2p caching.

Went through their basic idea of data lockers: need a decoupled
forwarding and signaling arch.

Presented the details of data lockers and results.

Question: LAP will be implemented at the client level?
Richard: Yes.
Q: Did you consider solutions that would be transparent to the clients?
Richard: No, do you have a solution?
Reinaldo: Why would a client upload to a data locker?
Richard: Avoid access congestion on last mile.  Avoids messing with
  tit-for-tat systems since I still get credit.

Christophe Diot, Nano Data Centers

Don't do p2p on pcs, but on devices managed by someone like the ISP.
That is, use the cable/DSL modem to provide p2p services.  These
devices become the nano data centers.

Q: Are you memory constrained on the CPEs?
A: No, b/w constrained and CPU constrained.

Went through pros and cons of the nano data center.

Henning: Is the 90% power savings in the aggregate or did you just
shift it from ISP to the customer's premise?
Christophe: No, in the aggregate.

Went through results and experimental evaluation on live streaming.

Thanks,
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/

---

From: "Jan Seedorf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:57:29 +0200

Dear Vijay,

Thanks for circulating these notes. Btw: it was IETF-74, I believe :)

 - Jan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Vijay K. Gurbani
> Sent: Mittwoch, 29. April 2009 23:50
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [p2prg] IETF 73 (raw) minutes
> 
> _______________________________________________
> p2prg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2prg