jasonwright365 at gmail.com
Mon Dec 1 13:24:23 MST 2008
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Michael Torrie <torriem at gmail.com> wrote:
> Jason Wright wrote:
>> I'm not sure I agree with this. TCP does throttling already, plus it
>> has an awful lot of connection-oriented control already. There are
>> some problems with it. (i.e. if you have multiple streams, you use
>> more than your fair share of the bandwidth, tcp global
>> synchronization, + a few others), but all-in-all it's the best we've
>> Plus, there is a lot of measures to ensure that window size is
>> appropriate. Some routers/firewalls/etc use TCP information.
> Except that bittorrent right now isn't being properly throttled and
> controlled by TCP/IP's built-in controls, due to the fact that many tcp
> connections are being used to transfer a single file. So the tcp/ip
> paradigm is completely broken what it is abused in this way.
>> Richard Bennett is right on the money. By disguising traffic using
>> UDP, the Internet is going to bomb. The best thing TCP does is let
>> everybody play fairly (as much as is possible) If utorrent implements
>> this, we will see caps on bandwidth, because 5% of users will
>> consistently use 95+% of the bandwidth and kill routers.
> Well, maybe companies should start being honest about what they are
> selling? If bandwidth caps are required to keep the 5% at bay, then
> either they must place such caps on or simply terminate the 5%. Either
> way companies have to be much clearer about what their service really is.
Being clearer is much more complicated, but it may end up being important.
>> Now if utorrent decides they will release the specifications of their
>> new connection-oriented protocol for public scrutiny (high level of
>> personal doubt) then we can have a more informed discussion.
> I guess you're contradicting what you just said then when you said
> Richard Bennett is right on the money. How can he be doing anything but
> scaremongering if no one knows any of the details yet? Is he not
> uninformed as much as any of us? Until such time as the details are
> released, then Bennett is parroting FUD, pure and simple. My only point
> is that the sky is, in fact, not falling. Just yet. I am not
> necessarily in favor of what uTorrent is doing. But I'm not yet opposed
Bennett is not scaremongering. He assumes that he is talking to those
who are familiar with UDP and TCP and know much of the details as
published in multiple RFCs (especially about congestion control).
uTorrent is being subversive in using UDP. While TCP congestion
controls are not perfect (they still rely on honesty of the client)
they are documented. Reimplimenting TCP (or something similar) over
UDP on the terms of your bandwidth-hogging application is just one way
of saying "I'm entitled and I'll do whatever I want whether or not it
affects other people." uTorrent is not releasing details.
More information about the PLUG