On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 01:18:01PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 22-okt-2007, at 18:12, Sean Donelan wrote:
Network operators probably aren't operating from altruistic principles, but for most network operators when the pain isn't spread equally across the the customer base it represents a "fairness" issue. If 490 customers are complaining about bad network performance and the cause is traced to what 10 customers are doing, the reaction is to hammer the nails sticking out.
The problem here is that they seem to be using a sledge hammer: BitTorrent is essentially left dead in the water.
From the perspective of thee protocol designers, unfair sharing is indeed "dead" but to state it in a way that indicates customers cannot *use* BT for some function is bogus. Part of the reason why caching, provider based, etc schemes seem to be unpopular is that private trackers appear to operate much in the way that
Wrong - seeding from scratch, that is uploading without any download component, is being clobbered. Seeding back into the swarm works while one is still taking chunks down, then closes. Essentially, all clients into a client similar to BitTyrant and focuses on, as Charlie put it earlier, customers downloading stuff. old BBS download/uploads used to... you get credits for contributing and can only pull down so much based on such credits. Not just bragging rights, but users need to take part in the transactions to actually use the service. A provider-hosted solution which managed to transparently handle this across multiple clients and trackers would likely be popular with the end users. Cheers, Joe -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE