Andrew McNabb wrote: > On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 10:58:24AM -0700, Michael Torrie wrote: >> Bittorrent's new udp protocol is an attempt to address the problems >> and make bittorrent more palatable to business users and isps because >> it does have it's own built-in controls now to make it coexist better >> with other forms of traffic that were previously harmed. I don't >> think they've done this without thinking about the long-term >> consequences. Nor is this an attempt to somehow beat ISP throttling. > > Interesting. So does this mean that Bittorrent is implementing an > alternative form of congestion control? As you point out, that would > really change the story.
They claim that it does, somehow (heard it on slashdot, so it must be true!). Of course since Bittorrent is being aimed at businesses as a legitimate distribution tool, this would make sense as no commercial user is going to want it to wreak havoc. > I'm still curious, though, about what would happen if we had net > neutrality laws and some application tried to beat ISP throttling with a > very aggressive protocol. I'm wondering how a staunch net neutralist > would view this hypothetical situation. Dunno. it's a hard one. Especially because, by design, our bandwidth is always over committed. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
