Pando Networks and P4P

Document Sample
Pando Networks and P4P Powered By Docstoc

Can P2P and ISP’s Work Together?
      Laird Popkin, CTO, Pando Networks
               November 2007

                 • P2P
                   – Business
                   – Technology
                   – What are ISP’s telling us?
                   – How can we work with ISP’s?
                 • P4P
                   – Who is in the P4P Working Group?
                   – The goals
                   – Results so far
                   – Next steps

2 Confidential
            The Opportunity of P2P

       !         The Internet is the media
                 delivery platform of the future    “Within five years, all
                                                   media will be delivered
       !         New technologies are needed
                                                    across the Internet.”
                 to scale the Internet for
                 higher quality media delivery
                                                   - Steve Ballmer, CEO Microsoft
       !         P2P networks present a              D5 Conference, June 2007
                 disruptive market opportunity

3 Confidential
            Maturing P2P Market

                 Nascent P2P Market (before 2007)       Commercial P2P Market (2007+)

                                                    • “Content Delivery” platform
        • “File Sharing” application                • P2P becomes part of content
                                                      delivery infrastructure
        • Rogue technology
                                                    • Content owners prefer to buy
        • Stand alone P2P applications
                                                      integrated P2P + CDN solution
                                                    • Major content and CDN players
                                                      select P2P technology partners

4 Confidential
            P2P and CDN are Partners in Content Delivery

                        P2P & CDN Parterships Yeild
                   Performance and Efficiency Optimized
                    Throughout Content Demand Curve
                    Content Demand

                                                           • Large, popular files
                                                           • Hi Resolution content (HD)
                                                           • RSS media subscriptions
                                                           • Game/software downloads
                                           “CDN Peering”
                                            P2P + HTTP

                                     P2P        HTTP

9 Confidential
            CDN PeerAssist (Pando Field Data)

                                Network Efficiency By Swarm Size
                      100.00%             94.00%


       % of data                                         57.00%
       delivered by
       peer cloud     52.50%
       vs. CDN.



                                 1000+    100 - 999      10 - 99    1-9

                                           # of nodes in swarm

10 Confidential
  “Pando may
 represent the
future of media
             What is Pando hearing from ISP’s?

                  – P2P is a key reason that many customers get
                  – Customers love Pando
                    • ISP’s are distributing “white label” Pando as a
                      value-add to their customers
                  – P2P consumes “all available resources”
                  – P2P is costing us too much to support

20 Confidential
             P2P : The Significant Bandwidth Consumer

         •     Traffic
                – Up to 60-70% of Internet traffic is contributed by P2P applications [CacheLogic]
                – Random peering causes traffic spread across POPs and domains
         •     Problems
                – Increased network resource usage (e.g., using bandwidth of more links)
                – Increased network operational costs
                – Degraded performance of other applications                25

           Pando and ISP’s

                  What is Pando doing to work with ISP’s?
           • Pando pays for transit (for Pando-hosted content)
           • Unique protocol signature (Pando doesn’t hide)
           • Working with caching server vendors:
                  – Caching servers have up to 80% “hit rate”, provide great performance
                  – But require ISP capital investment, so can’t be the only answer

           • Make software smarter about ISP infrastructure
                  – Attempts to reverse engineer structure are weak:
                       • AS mapping
                       • /24 mapping
                       • Ping times
                       • Traceroutes
                  – So let’s get accurate knowledge from the ISP’s!
                     • Thus P4P.

21 Confidential

                  P4P: Partnership between
                   ISP’s and P2P Networks

                    Laird Popkin, Co-Chair, P4P Working Group

22 Confidential
            P4P Working Group

        P4P Working Group: Co-Chaired by Pando and Verizon, based on
        research from Yale, hosted by Distributed Computing Industry

                            Core Group                Observers
                  AT&T             Pando Networks       Abacast
                  BitTorrent       RawFlow
                  Cisco Systems    Telefonica Group     Cox Communications
                  Grid Networks    VeriSign             Comcast
                  Joost            Verizon              MPAA
                                                        NBC Universal
                  LimeWire         Washington           Oversi
                  Manatt           University           PeerApp
                                   Yale University      Time Warner Cable
                                                        Turner Broadcasting

23 Confidential

       • Motivation
       • P4P framework
                  • Design rationale
                  • System architecture
                  • Computing peering suggestions
       • Evaluations
       • Ongoing work

24 Confidential
            Bandwidth Battle between ISPs and P2P

       ISP’s Address P2P                P2P Countermeasures
       • Upgrade Network                • Use random ports
         Infrastructure                 • Encrypt traffic
       • Deploy P2P Caching             • etc.
       • Terminate User
       • Rate Limit P2P Traffic
       • etc.
          The battle results in a lose-lose situation

26 Confidential
               Where is the Fundamental Problem?

      • Traditional ISP feedback/control to application traffic:
                – Routing
                – Rate control through congestion feedback (packet drops)

      • These are ineffective for P2P
                – Due to highly dynamic, scattered traffic pattern caused by
                  dynamic, unguided (network-oblivious) peer selection

      • Need a mechanism for ISPs to communicate with
        P2P about network structure and policies



      • Design a framework to enable better ISP and P2P
                – ISPs and P2P jointly decide P2P peer selection

      • Guided P2P connections should yield benefits:
                – Improve throughput to P2P users
                – Allow ISP’s to manage link utilization
                   • Reduce congestion for capped links
                   • Reduce link costs for non-capped links
                   • Push traffic from (expensive/limited) external links to internal


            Network Awareness redefines P2P

                  Network Aware P2P will reduce costs, improve performance

                    Traditional CDN                       Network Aware
                                                           P2P Platform

                                       Internet Transit                        Most Limited

                                      Regional Network

                                       Edge Network                            Most Available

                  More Viewers =                          More Viewers =
                  Worse performance                       Better performance
                  Higher cost                             Lower cost

29 Confidential
               P4P Framework – Goals

      • Performance improvement for both ISPs and P2P
      • Scalability
                – Support a large number of P2P users and networks in
                  dynamic settings
      • Privacy preservation
      • Flexibility: apply to many P2P architectures
                – Application-specific requirements
                – Tracker-based and trackerless P2P systems
                – “Gossip” among peers
      • Ease of implementation (“low hanging fruit”)
      • Open standard: any ISP, P2P can easily implement it

               P4P in Tracker-based P2P (e.g. BitTorrent)

      •        Use BitTorrent in a single                  pTracker                          iTracker
               ISP as an example
                – pTracker runs P2P system
                – iTracker makes
                  suggestions for peering
                  relationships                                           3
      •        Information flow:
                – 1. peer queries pTracker
                – 2. pTracker asks iTracker for    1
                  guidance (occasionally)
                – 3. iTracker returns high-level
                  peering suggestions
                – 4. pTracker selects and
                  returns a set of active peers,
                                                                                     ISP A
                  according to the
                  suggestions                             peer

                                                       iTracker can be run by trusted third parties, or
                                                       P2P networks, or ISP’s.

               Compute Suggested Peering Relationships

         • Formulate as a joint optimization problem
                 – ISP’s objective: minimize maximum link utilization
                 – P2P’s objective: maximize throughput



Evaluated P4P approach via simulations and experiments:
• Simulations
   – Discrete-event simulation
       • a module for modeling BitTorrent protocol
       • a module for modeling underlying network topology and data
         transfer dynamics using TCP rate equation
   – Network topology: PoP-level Abilene and AT&T topologies
     derived from public data sources.
   – Network routing: OSPF routing
• PlanetLab experiments
   – 53 Internet2 nodes on PlanetLab
   – iTracker for Abilene network
   – Use OSPF routing to re-construct traffic load on Abilene links

            Abilene Simulation Results: Good for P2P Networks

                     Evaluation – Abilene Simulation
                  P4P yields over 2x speed increase!

35 Confidential
            Abilene Simulation Results: Good for ISP’s

                       Evaluation – Abilene Simulation
                  P4P yields over 2x drop in external link
                  utilization! (and for ! the time!)

36 Confidential
             AT&T Simulation Results Confirm

       Confirmed on AT&T model:
       • P4P resulted in:
                  – 1.6x faster completion
                  – 3x lower link utilization
       • Native P2P can result in
         some peers experiencing
         very long download
         completion time
       • P4P can result in much
         lower variance in link

       •      Note: test not endorsed by AT&T.


37 Confidential
             PlanetLab Implementation Confirms



           Swarm Size

                         Implemented on PlanetLab:
                         • Implemented P4P in BT Tracker, etc.
                         • Run on 53 PlanetLab nodes for 900 seconds
                         • Liveswarms is BT-based video streaming
                         • P4P resulted in: over 2x lower link utilization

37 Confidential

              Interested in P4P?

       •      P4P WG is free to join.
       •      Email or
       •      Monthly phone calls
       •      Working Group mission:
                  – Evaluate the P4P design through large-scale experiments
                  – Formalize and promote adoption of P4P protocols
                  – Serve as a forum for ISP’s and P2P networks

38 Confidential

Shared By:
Description: P4P full name of the "Proactive network Provider Participation for P2P", is an upgraded version of P2P technology, intended to strengthen the service provider (ISP) and client communication, reduce stress and operational backbone network transmission costs, and improve P2P file transfer improved Performance. Randomly selected with the P2P Peer (peer) different, P4P protocol to coordinate the network topology data, can effectively select Peer, thereby improving the efficiency of network routing.