Improving Peer Selection in Peer-to-peer Applications: Myths vs. Reality
RFC 6821

• Status
• IESG evaluation record
• IESG writeups
• Email expansions
• History

• Versions
• 01
• 02
• 03

Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)                           E. Marocco
Request for Comments: 6821                                      A. Fusco
Category: Informational                                   Telecom Italia
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                 I. Rimac
                                                              V. Gurbani
                                               Bell Labs, Alcatel-Lucent
                                                           December 2012

         Improving Peer Selection in Peer-to-Peer Applications:
                           Myths vs. Reality

Abstract

   Peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic optimization techniques that aim at
   improving locality in the peer selection process have attracted great
   interest in the research community and have been the subject of much
   discussion.  Some of this discussion has produced controversial
   myths, some rooted in reality while others remain unfounded.  This
   document evaluates the most prominent myths attributed to P2P
   optimization techniques by referencing the most relevant study or
   studies that have addressed facts pertaining to the myth.  Using
   these studies, the authors hope to either confirm or refute each
   specific myth.

   This document is a product of the IRTF P2PRG (Peer-to-Peer Research
   Group).

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Research Task Force
   (IRTF).  The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related research
   and development activities.  These results might not be suitable for
   deployment.  This RFC represents the consensus of the Peer-to-peer
   Research Group Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force
   (IRTF).  Documents approved for publication by the IRSG are not a
   candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC
   5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6821.

Marocco, et al.               Informational                     [Page 1]
RFC 6821           Peer Selection in P2P Applications      December 2012

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.

Marocco, et al.               Informational                     [Page 2]
RFC 6821           Peer Selection in P2P Applications      December 2012

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................4
   2. Definitions .....................................................5
   3. Myths, Facts, and Discussion ....................................6
      3.1. Reduced Cross-Domain Traffic ...............................6
           3.1.1. Facts ...............................................6
           3.1.2. Discussion ..........................................7
           3.1.3. Conclusions .........................................7
      3.2. Increased Application Performance ..........................7
           3.2.1. Facts ...............................................7
           3.2.2. Discussion ..........................................8
           3.2.3. Conclusions .........................................9
      3.3. Increased Uplink Bandwidth Usage ...........................9
           3.3.1. Facts ...............................................9
           3.3.2. Discussion ..........................................9
           3.3.3. Conclusions .........................................9
      3.4. Impacts on Peering Agreements ..............................9
           3.4.1. Facts ..............................................10
           3.4.2. Discussion .........................................10
           3.4.3. Conclusions ........................................11
      3.5. Impacts on Transit ........................................11
           3.5.1. Facts ..............................................11
           3.5.2. Discussion .........................................11
           3.5.3. Conclusions ........................................11
      3.6. Swarm Weakening ...........................................12
           3.6.1. Facts ..............................................12
           3.6.2. Discussion .........................................12
           3.6.3. Conclusions ........................................12
      3.7. Improved P2P Caching ......................................12