Pando Confidential

®

Can P2P and ISP’s Work Together?Laird Popkin, CTO, Pando Networks

November 2007

Overview

• Pando & P2P– Business– Technology– What are ISP’s telling us?– How can we work with ISP’s?

• P4P– Who is in the P4P Working Group?– The goals– Results so far– Next steps

2 Confidential

The Opportunity of P2P

“Within five years, all media will be delivered

across the Internet.”

- Steve Ballmer, CEO MicrosoftD5 Conference, June 2007

The Internet is the media delivery platform of the future

New technologies are needed to scale the Internet for higher quality media delivery

P2P networks present a disruptive market opportunity

3 Confidential

Nascent P2P Market (before 2007)

“File Sharing” application

Rogue technology

Stand alone P2P applications

Pando.com, free consumer app.

Commercial P2P Market (2007+)

“Content Delivery” mechanism

P2P becomes part of content delivery infrastructure

Content owners prefer to buy integrated P2P + CDN solution

Major content and CDN players select P2P technology partners

Maturing P2P Market

4 Confidential

Total Installs >15M Daily Media Deliveries >500K

30 Day Online Nodes30 Day Active Nodes

Pando is a Proven Platform

6 Confidential

Swarm Efficiency

Managed P2P:• Control Servers

– Secure, Coordinate, Control, Report

• CDN Servers– Reliable

• P2P Clients– Efficient

15 Confidential

Managed P2P:Control Servers

Secure, Coordinate, Control, Report

CDN ServersReliable

P2P ClientsEfficient

8 Confidential

How is Pando different from “generic” P2P?

Secure, Controlled

Distributed NetworkEfficient & Scalable

Central Server

Managed Peer to Peer Infrastructure

Monetization PlatformDynamic & Targeted

Pando is a Market Leader

• CDN Peer Assist• Pando and CDN’s pay for transit to provide reliability, performance

• P2P streaming• P2P boost for progressive download/playback of FLV, QT, WMV, etc.

• Managed Network• Reporting, control, DMCA takedowns, etc.

• Integrates into applications and web services (APIs)• Proven scale and network efficiency

• More “edge” than any “Edge Network”• Partnering with CDNs and selling directly• Pricing and QOS disruptive to large and growing market

Pando Unique Value Proposition

7 Confidential

9 Confidential

P2P HTTP

“CDN Peering”P2P + HTTP

Performance and Efficiency Optimized Throughout Content

Demand Curve

CDN PeerAssist (Marketing Diagram)

Con

tent

Dem

and

Large, popular files

Hi Resolution content (HD)

RSS media subscriptions

Game/software downloads

CDN PeerAssist (Real Data)

5.00%

28.75%

52.50%

76.25%

100.00%

1000+ 100 - 999 10 - 99 1 - 9

14.00%

57.00%

94.00%100.00%

Network Efficiency By Swarm Size

10 Confidential

# of nodes in swarm

% of datadelivered by peer cloud vs. CDN.

“Pando may represent the

future of media distribution.”

Pando’s Technical Differentiators

Pando Technology:• Cross-platform

– Core is portable C code. Supported on Windows, Mac and Linux.• Native binary

– efficient, embeddable. Platform-native GUI’s.

• Widely used – Well tested, proven scalability

• Web embedded through standard protocols– support any browser, any OS, any media player.

• Resilient p2p protocol uses best available channel:– Full P2P through HTTP tunneling through proxies, with auto-detection, – UDP and TCP hole punching through firewalls, etc.

• User are in control– can uninstall, set limits, etc. Result = 75% long-term retention rate.

• Partners are in control– Control all presentation, branding (Pando Media Booster).

• ISP-friendly P2P– Cache server integrations, P4P WG.

14 Confidential

Pando Client Architecture

Clients:• Pando stand-alone• Pando Media Booster• Pando Command LinePando integrates into:• Web Sites• Applications• Devices• Content ManagementPando is portable:• Windows• Mac OS X• Linux

17 Confidential

Network Protocols

Layered Protocol• Control:

– SOAP over SSL• Tracker

– TCP or UDP• Data Transfer

– TCP w/ STUNT– UDP w/ STUN– HTTP, Proxy

18 Confidential

What is Pando hearing from ISP’s?

Good:–P2P is a key reason that many customers get

broadband–Customers love Pando

• Some ISP’s are distributing “white label” Pando as a value-add to their customers

Bad:–P2P consumes all available resources –P2P is costing us too much to support

20 Confidential

Pando and ISP’s

What is Pando doing to work with ISP’s?• Pando pays for transit (for Pando-hosted content)• Unique protocol signature (Pando doesn’t hide)• Working with caching server vendors:

– Caching servers have up to 80% “hit rate”, provide great performance– But require ISP capital investment, so can’t be the only answer

• Make software smarter about ISP infrastructure– Attempts to reverse engineer structure are weak:

• AS mapping• /24 mapping• Ping times• Traceroutes

– So let’s get accurate knowledge from the ISP’s!• Thus P4P.

21 Confidential

P4P: Partnership between ISP’s and P2P Networks

Laird Popkin, Co-Chair, P4P Working Group

P4P

22 Confidential

Core GroupAT&TBitTorrentCisco SystemsGrid NetworksJoostLimeWireManatt

ObserversAbacastCablevisionCacheLogicCox CommunicationsComcastMPAANBC UniversalOversiPeerAppTime Warner CableTurner Broadcasting

23 Confidential

P4P Working Group

P4P Working Group: Co-Chaired by Pando and Verizon, based on research from Yale, hosted by Distributed Computing Industry Association.

Pando NetworksRawFlowTelefonica GroupVeriSignVerizonWashington UniversityYale University

• Motivation• P4P framework

• Design rationale• System architecture• Computing peering suggestions

• Evaluations• Ongoing work

Roadmap

24 Confidential

Confidential

25

P2P : The Significant Bandwidth Consumer

• Traffic– Up to 60-70% of Internet traffic is contributed by P2P applications [CacheLogic]– Random peering causes traffic spread across POPs and domains

• Problems– Increased network resource usage (e.g., using bandwidth of more links)– Increased network operational costs – Degraded performance of other applications

Bandwidth Battle between ISPs and P2P

ISP’s Address P2PUpgrade Network InfrastructureDeploy P2P Caching DevicesTerminate User ConnectivityRate Limit P2P Trafficetc.

P2P CountermeasuresUse random portsEncrypt trafficetc.

The battle results in a lose-lose situation

26 Confidential

Confidential

27

Where is the Fundamental Problem?

• Traditional ISP feedback/control to application traffic:– Routing– Rate control through congestion feedback (packet drops)

• These are ineffective for P2P– Due to highly dynamic, scattered traffic pattern caused by

dynamic, unguided (network-oblivious) peer selection

• Need a mechanism for ISPs to communicate with P2P about network structure and policies

Confidential

28

Objective

• Design a framework to enable better ISP and P2P coordination– ISPs and P2P jointly decide P2P peer selection

• Guided P2P connections should yield benefits:– Improve throughput to P2P users– Allow ISP’s to manage link utilization

• Reduce congestion for capped links• Reduce link costs for non-capped links• Push traffic from (expensive/limited) external links to internal

links

29 Confidential

Network Awareness redefines P2P

Network Aware P2P will reduce costs, improve performance

Network Aware P2P Platform

Traditional CDN

More Viewers =Better performanceLower cost

More Viewers =Worse performanceHigher cost

Most Limited

Most AvailableEdge Network

Regional Network

Internet Transit

Confidential

30

P4P Framework – Goals

• Performance improvement for both ISPs and P2P• Scalability

– Support a large number of P2P users and networks in dynamic settings

• Privacy preservation• Flexibility: apply to many P2P architectures

– Application-specific requirements– Tracker-based and trackerless P2P systems– “Gossip” among peers

• Ease of implementation (“low hanging fruit”)• Open standard: any ISP, P2P can easily implement it

Confidential

31

ISP A

P4P in Tracker-based P2P (e.g. BitTorrent)

1 4

3

2

pTracker iTracker

peer

• Use BitTorrent in a single ISP as an example

– pTracker runs P2P system– iTracker makes suggestions

for peering relationships• Information flow:

– 1. peer queries pTracker– 2. pTracker asks iTracker for

guidance (occasionally)– 3. iTracker returns high-level

peering suggestions– 4. pTracker selects and

returns a set of active peers, according to the suggestions

iTracker can be run by trusted third parties, or P2P networks, or ISP’s.

Confidential

33

Compute Suggested Peering Relationships

• Formulate as a joint optimization problem– ISP’s objective: minimize maximum link utilization– P2P’s objective: maximize throughput

34

Results

Evaluated P4P approach via simulations and experiments:• Simulations

– Discrete-event simulation• a module for modeling BitTorrent protocol• a module for modeling underlying network topology and data

transfer dynamics using TCP rate equation– Network topology: PoP-level Abilene and AT&T topologies– Network routing: OSPF routing

• PlanetLab experiments– 53 Internet2 nodes on PlanetLab– iTracker for Abilene network– Use OSPF routing to re-construct traffic load on Abilene links

Evaluation – Abilene Simulation

P4P yields over 2x speed increase!

Abilene Simulation Results: Good for P2P Networks

35 Confidential

Evaluation – Abilene SimulationP4P yields over 2x drop in external link utilization! (and for ½ the time!)

Abilene Simulation Results: Good for ISP’s

36 Confidential

37

AT&T Simulation Results Confirm

Confirmed on AT&T model:• P4P resulted in:

– 1.6x faster completion– 3x lower link utilization

• Native P2P can result in some peers experiencing very long download completion time

• P4P can result in much lower variance in link utilization

37 Confidential

37

PlanetLab Implementation Confirms

Implemented on PlanetLab:• Implemented P4P in BT Tracker, etc.• Run on 53 PlanetLab nodes for 900 seconds• Liveswarms is BT-based video streaming• P4P resulted in: over 2x lower link utilization

37 Confidential

LinkUtilization

BTBT+P4P

Swarm Size

Interested?

38 Confidential

Interested in P4P?

P4P WG is free to join.Email marty@dcia.info or laird@pando.comMonthly phone callsWorking Group mission:Evaluate the P4P design through large-scale experimentsFormalize and promote adoption of P4P protocolsServe as a forum for ISP’s and P2P networks

Questions?