Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A study on key strategies in P2P file sharing systems and ISPs’ P2P traffic management

  • Published:
Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The flourish of P2P systems draws a lot of attention of networking researchers. Some research efforts focus on P2P systems, trying to understand the mechanism of various implementations and the behavior pattern of P2P users, and then improve the systems’ performance. Others look at the issue from the angle of ISPs, trying to help ISPs solve various issues brought by P2P applications. In this article, we conduct a review study on recent research efforts in these two areas. The first part of this article focuses on several key strategies that have significant influence on the performance of P2P systems. In the second part, we review some important techniques for ISPs to manage P2P traffic, i.e., blocking, caching and localization, and compare their advantages and disadvantages.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. The last piece problem means a node has difficulty finding a peer that possesses the last piece, increasing the overall download time significantly in distribution systems.

References

  1. Kulbak Y, Bickson D (2005) The emule protocol specification. Tech. Rep., http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/labs/danss/presentations/emule.pdf

  2. Wang JH, Chiu DM, Lui JC (2008) A game-theoretic analysis of the implications of overlay network traffic on isp peering. Comput Networks 52(15):2961–2974

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Karagiannis T, Broido A, Brownlee N, Claffy KC, Faloutsos M (2004) Is p2p dying or just hiding? In: GLOBECOM 2004. Dallas, Texas, USA, IEEE Computer Society Press

    Google Scholar 

  4. Androutsellis-Theotokis S, Spinellis D (2004) A survey of peer-to-peer content distribution technologies. ACM Comput Surv 36(4):335–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lua EK, Crowcroft J, Pias M, Sharma R, Lim S (2005) A survey and comparison of peer-to-peer overlay network schemes. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor 7:72–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Marciniak P, Liogkas N, Legout A, Kohler E (2008) Small is not always beautiful. In: IPTPS’08, the 7th international workshop on peer-to-peer systems, Tampa Bay, Florida, USA

  7. Legout A, Urvoy-Keller G, Michiardi P (2006) Rarest first and choke algorithms are enough. In: IMC’2006, ACM SIGCOMM/USENIX conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

  8. Huang Y, Fu TZJ, Chiu D-M, Lui JCS, Huang C (2008) Challenges, design and analysis of a large-scale p2p-vod system. In: SIGCOMM ’08: proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2008 conference on data communication, Seattle, WA, USA, pp 375–388

  9. Zhou Y, Ming Chiu D, Lui JCS (2007) A Simple Model for Analyzing P2P Streaming Protocols. IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols, 2007. ICNP 2007. pp 226–235. doi:10.1109/ICNP.2007.4375853

  10. Vlavianos A, Iliofotou M, Faloutsos M (2006) Bitos: enhancing bittorrent for supporting streaming applications. In: IEEE global internet, pp 1–6

  11. Zhao B, Lui J, Chiu D-M (2009) Exploring the optimal chunk selection policy for data-driven p2p streaming systems. In: IEEE ninth international conference on peer-to-peer computing, 2009. P2P ’09, pp 271–280

  12. Bharambe AR, Herley C, Padmanabhan VN (2006) Analyzing and improving a bittorrent network’s performance mechanisms. In: IEEE Infocom 2006, Barcelona, Spain

  13. Kostic D, Braud R, Killian CE, Vandekieft E, Anderson JW, Snoeren AC, Vahdat A (2005) Maintaining high bandwidth under dynamic network conditions. In: ATEC ’05: proceedings of the annual conference on USENIX annual technical conference

  14. Gkantsidis C, Rodriguez P (2005) Network coding for large scale content distribution. In: IEEE infocom 2005, Miami, USA

  15. Jun S, Ahamad M (2005) Incentives in bittorrent induce free riding. In: P2PECON ’05: proceedings of the 2005 ACM sigcomm workshop on economics of peer-to-peer systems, pp 116–121

  16. Sherman A, Nieh J, Stein C (2009) Fairtorrent: bringing fairness to peer-to-peer systems. In: CoNEXT ’09: proceedings of the 5th international conference on emerging networking experiments and technologies. New York, NY, USA: ACM, pp 133–144

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Chan JS, Li VO, Lui K-S (2007) Performance comparison of scheduling algorithms for peer-to-peer collaborative file distribution. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 25(1):146–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Halme A (2005) Peer-to-peer traffic: impact on isps and evaluation of traffic management tools. In: HUT T-110.551 seminar on internetworking

  19. Roughan M, Sen S, Spatscheck O, Duffield N (2004) Class-of-service mapping for qos: a statistical signature-based approach to ip traffic classification. In: IMC 04: proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGCOMM conference on internet measurement. New York, USA, pp 135–148

  20. Constantinou F, Mavrommatis P (2006) Identifying known and unknown peer-to-peer traffic. In: IEEE international symposium on network computing and applications, pp 93–102

  21. Crotti M, Dusi M, Gringoli F, Salgarelli L (2007) Traffic classification through simple statistical fingerprinting. Comput Commun Rev 37(1):5–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Suh K, Figueiredo DR, Kurose J, Towsley D (2006) Characterizing and detecting skype-relayed traffic. In: INFOCOM 2006. 25th IEEE international conference on computer communications, Barcelona, Spain, pp 1–12

  23. Moore AW, Zuev D (2005) Internet traffic classification using bayesian analysis techniques. In: ACM SIGMETRICS 2005, Banff, Alberta, Canada

  24. Couto A, Nogueira A, Salvador P, Valadas R (2008) Identification of peer-to-peer applications’ flow patterns. In: Next generation internet networks, NGI 2008, pp 292–299

  25. Subhabrata S, Oliver S, Wang D (2004) Accurate, scalable in-network identification of p2p traffic using application signatures. In: WWW ’04: proceedings of the 13th international conference on world wide web, pp 512–521

  26. Dischinger M, Mislove A, Haeberlen A, Gummadi KP (2008) Detecting bittorrent blocking. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGCOMM conference on internet measurement (IMC’08), Vouliagmeni, Greece

  27. Wierzbicki A, Leibowitz N, Ripeanu M, Wozniak R (2004) Cache replacement policies revisited: the case of p2p traffic. Los Alamitos, CA, USA, pp 182–189

  28. Leibowitz N, Bergman A, Ben-Shaul R, Shavit A (2002) Are file swapping networks cacheable? Characterizing p2p traffic. In: The 7th international workshop on web content caching and distribution (WCW’02), Boulder, CO, USA

  29. Huang N-F, Chu Y-M, Tsai C-H, Huang W-Z, Tzeng W-J (2009) A resource-efficient traffic localization scheme for multiple bittorrents. In: IEEE international conference on communications, 2009. ICC ’09, pp 1–5

  30. Saleh O, Hefeeda M (2006) Modeling and caching of peer-to-peer traffic. In: IEEE international conference on network protocols, pp 249–258

  31. Ye M, Wu J, Xu K (2008) Caching the p2p traffic in isp network. In: IEEE international conference on communications, 2008, ICC ’08, pp 5876–5880

  32. Tagami A, Hasegawa T, Hasegawa T (2004) Analysis and application of passive peer influence on peer-to-peer inter-domain traffic. In: P2P ’04: proceedings of the fourth international conference on peer-to-peer computing. Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society, pp 142–150

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Papafili I, Soursos S, Stamoulis GD (2009) Improvement of bittorrent performance and inter-domain traffic by inserting isp-owned peers. In: ICQT ’09: proceedings of the 6th international workshop on internet charging and Qos technologies. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, pp 97–108

    Google Scholar 

  34. Gummadi KP, Dunn RJ, Saroiu S, Gribble SD, Levy HM, Zahorjan J (2003) Measurement, modeling, and analysis of a peer-to-peer file-sharing workload. SIGOPS Oper Syst Rev 37(5):314–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hamada T, Chujo K, Chujo T, Yang X (2004) Peer-to-peer traffic in metro networks: analysis, modeling, and policies. In: Network operations and management symposium, NOMS 2004. IEEE/IFIP, vol 1, pp 425–438

  36. Karagiannis T, Rodriguez P, Papagiannaki K (2005) Should internet service providers fear peer-assisted content distribution? In: IMC’05: proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGCOMM conference on internet measurement, pp 63–76

  37. Bindal R, Cao P, Chan W, Medved J, Suwala G, Bates T, Zhang A (2006) Improving traffic locality in bittorrent via biased neighbor selection. In: 26th IEEE international conference on distributed computing systems, ICDCS 2006, p 66

  38. Vishnumurthy V, Francis P (2008) On the difficulty of finding the nearest peer in p2p systems. In: IMC ’08: proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGCOMM conference on internet measurement. New York, NY, USA: ACM, pp 9–14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. Li W, Chen S, Yu T (2008) Utaps: an underlying topology-aware peer selection algorithm in bittorrent. In: International conference on advanced information networking and applications, pp 539–545

  40. Choffnes DR, Bustamante FE (2008) Taming the torrent: a practical approach to reducing cross-isp traffic in peer-to-peer systems. SIGCOMM Comput Commun Rev 38(4):363–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Aggarwal V, Feldmann A, Scheideler C (2007) Can isps and p2p users cooperate for improved performance? SIGCOMM Comput Commun Rev 37(3):29–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Xie H, Yang YR, Krishnamurthy A, Liu Y, Silberschatz A (2008) P4P: provider portal for applications. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, Seattle, WA

  43. Oechsner S, Lehrieder F, Hossfeld T, Metzger F, Staehle D, Pussep K (2009) Pushing the performance of biased neighbor selection through biased unchoking. In: IEEE ninth international conference on peer-to-peer computing, 2009. P2P ’09, pp 301–310

  44. Seedorf J, Kiesel S, Stiemerling M (2009) Traffic localization for p2p-applications: the alto approach. In: IEEE ninth international conference on peer-to-peer computing, 2009, P2P ’09, pp 171–177

  45. Gurbani V, Hilt V, Rimac I, Tomsu M, Marocco E (2009) A survey of research on the application-layer traffic optimization problem and the need for layer cooperation. IEEE Commun Mag 47(8):107–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Network Research Center, Tsinghua National Laboratory of Information Science and Technology, Tsinghua University, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

    Jessie Hui Wang, Chungang Wang, Jiahai Yang & Changqing An

Authors
  1. Jessie Hui Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chungang Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jiahai Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Changqing An
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessie Hui Wang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wang, J.H., Wang, C., Yang, J. et al. A study on key strategies in P2P file sharing systems and ISPs’ P2P traffic management. Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl. 4, 410–419 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12083-010-0098-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12083-010-0098-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation