Hello;
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 00:57:17 -0500 Patrick W Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 5, 2004, at 12:45 AM, Petri Helenius wrote: > > > Netflow is based on port numbers and many run bittorrent on fairly > > random ports. Look at the 30%+ unidentified on the report. > > Yes, but HTTP tends to run on the same port, and it only made 15.76% of > bits and 18.53% of the packets. > > I know P2P is "big", but is HTTP really only 16% of the bits on the > 'Net? > > Question is: Is this data representative of "Internet 1"? I'm thinking > not, since "Iperf" was more bits than HTTP. > The fascinating thing with the time history of these data is that Napster used to dominate. Then it was killed and the "unknown" category steadily grew to replace it. The rise of Iperf is recent and seems silly. What, of course, is not clear is what fraction of capacity it represents - maybe it is a small faction of what could be used. I thought that BitTorrent (due to its shared use of bandwidth) would use well known ports, but if not then it is clearly part of the "unknown." One wonders how Reuters and company could measure it, but here is a back of the envelope guess. BitTorrent is just under 50% of the _known_ P2P traffic. Assume that it is also 50% of the _unknown_ P2P traffic. That gives it a known fraction of the total traffic of 4.94 % (measured) and 15% (guesstimated), or about 20%, which is larger than http. So, its plausible that BT traffic is > http traffic, but I wouldn't want to further than that. Yes, I would assume that P2P is a substantial fraction of I1 traffic. It certainly goes on at work. Regards Marshall > -- > TTFN, > patrick >
