This happened when voip hit mainstream started using UDP and the  
internet is still here. But since it's BitTorrent, Inc and closed  
source we won't know until they do a massive deployment. IMHO it is  
pure stupidity to not have opened this protocol for critique first.

On Dec 1, 2008, at 3:06 PM, Serguei Osokine wrote:

> On Monday, December 01, 2008 travis kalanick wrote:
>> If uTorrent's UDP implementation results in a more aggressive
>> TCP, there is certainly the possibility that uTorrent could
>> create massive FAIL on the Internets.
>>
>> Anyone who's created/tuned a distributed-UDP-based-TCP-like
>> protocol (e.g. David Barrett, Matthew Kaufman, Alex Pankrotov)
>> knows the delicate nature of how distributed-TCP-in-UDP works,
>> and how it can go very haywire with just a couple of well-
>> intentioned tweaks.
>
> Most certainly; but my question was, is there any evidence of this
> protocol "going very haywire", or the article just paints the worst
> possible scenario, sort of like telling that the asteroid can destroy
> all life on Earth? I mean, it sure can - but where's the asteroid?
>
> Best wishes -
> S.Osokine.
> 1 Dec 2008.
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> ] On Behalf Of travis kalanick
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 1:47 PM
> To: theory and practice of decentralized computer networks
> Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] Did uTorrent add NAT traversal?
>
>
> If uTorrent's UDP implementation results in a more aggressive TCP,  
> there is certainly the possibility that uTorrent could create  
> massive FAIL on the Internets.
>
> Anyone who's created/tuned a distributed-UDP-based-TCP-like protocol  
> (e.g. David Barrett, Matthew Kaufman, Alex Pankrotov) knows the  
> delicate nature of how distributed-TCP-in-UDP works, and how it can  
> go very haywire with just a couple of well-intentioned tweaks.
>
> uTorrent is so widely distributed and so massively utilized for  
> download activity, that if this update goes out in the defacto  
> uTorrent client (new installs and auto-updates and the like), we  
> should hope that there is a slow steady deployment to make sure  
> there aren't serious problems with "crowding out" in the protocol.
>
> If there is a massive auto-update, and a massive FAIL that follows,  
> we should all expect our uTorrent apps to be disabled by ISP, auto- 
> downgraded by Bittorrent Inc., etc. until a TCP friendly protocol is  
> deployed.
>
> Travis
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Serguei Osokine <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > wrote:
>
>
>       On Monday, December 01, 2008 David Barrett wrote:
>       > Saw uTorrent switched to UDP:
>       >
>       > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/01/richard_bennett_utorrent_udp/
>       
>       
>       Is it just me, or this article is really unnecessarily alarmist?
>       Richard Bennett describes the situation as if there is no congestion
>       control in the UDP file transfer protocol used by uTorrent, which
>       I find a bit hard to believe.
>       
>       Is this really the case? I cannot imagine how the data transfer
>       protocol without any congestion control can possibly exist - the
>       only issue seems to be how aggressive would it be in comparison
>       with TCP, not whether it would melt down the Internet or not. But
>       he sounds like the sky will be falling any moment now; is this
>       position substantiated by any objective evidence?
>       
>       Best wishes -
>       S.Osokine.
>       1 Dec 2008.
>       
>
>
>
>
>       -----Original Message-----
>       From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> ] On Behalf Of David Barrett
>       
>       Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 12:10 PM
>       To: theory and practice of decentralized computer networks
>       Subject: [p2p-hackers] Did uTorrent add NAT traversal?
>       
>       
>       Saw uTorrent switched to UDP:
>       
>       http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/01/richard_bennett_utorrent_udp/
>       
>       Did they also add simultaneous connect NAT traversal?  That'd  
> require a
>       tracker change, I assume.  (Though they could probably do it  
> through the
>       DHT.)
>       
>       -david
>       
>       _______________________________________________
>       p2p-hackers mailing list
>       [email protected]
>       http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
>       _______________________________________________
>       p2p-hackers mailing list
>       [email protected]
>       http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
>       
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2p-hackers mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers

_______________________________________________
p2p-hackers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers

Reply via email to