On Oct 25, 2007, at 12:24 PM, <michael.dillon@bt.com> wrote:
Rep. Boucher's solution: more capacity, even though it has been demonstrated many times more capacity doesn't actually solve this particular problem.
Where has it been proven that adding capacity won't solve the P2P bandwidth problem?
I don't think it has.
I'm aware that some studies have shown that P2P demand increases when capacity is added, but I am not aware that anyone has attempted to see if there is an upper limit for that appetite.
I have raised this issue with P2P promoters, and they all feel that the limit will be about at the limit of what people can watch (i.e., full rate video for whatever duration they want to watch such, at somewhere between 1 and 10 Mbps). From that regard, it's not too different from the limit _without_ P2P, which is, after all, a transport mechanism, not a promotional one. Regards Marshall
In any case, politicians can often be convinced that a different action is better (or at least good enough) if they can see action being taken.
Packet switch networks are darn cheap because you share capacity with lots of other uses; Circuit switch networks are more expensive because you get dedicated capacity for your sole use.
That leaves us with the technology of sharing, and as others have pointed out, use of DSCP bits to deploy a Scavenger service would resolve the P2P bandwidth crunch, if operators work together with P2P software authors. Since BitTorrent is open source, and written in Python which is generally quite easy to figure out, how soon before an operator runs a trial with a customized version of BitTorrent on their network?
--Michael Dillon