We're guessing we're not the only one to have never heard of P4P before now, but there's probably a good reason for that: it doesn't exist yet. See, P4P is designed to speed up
peer-to-peer file transfers and alleviate network strain by using information about network conditions and network topology in order to increase routing efficiency -- more bits, less work. The problem is that you're going to need service provider cooperation to pull that off (P4P stands for Proactive network Provider Participation for P2P) and now Verizon has signed on to take the concept to the next level. What's not clear yet is whether only specific, commercial P2P apps will be able to benefit from this tech, so that carriers can make sure everything is on the up and up, but with tested performance improvements as high as 600 percent, we sure hope this is coming soon to a torrent client near you.
[Thanks, Ehren]
posted Mar 14th 2008 9:43AM
d, n, n ,n ,n ,n
d, n , n. n ,n ,n
d, N, N, N, N,N, N
dillil i n n n n n n dilli li lil lil lil lil lil n.
LOL @ that pic and that post.
ha. Well said.
Cheers,
Darius
I... have... just... gotten... a... boner...
what is that referring to? my bad for not knowing
Had he jumped backwards through the walls, he could have gotten to the secret -1 Level...
The thing that bothers me the most is the use of acronyms as abbreviations in acronyms
Then, my friend, you have a very easy life.
Agreed. Maybe PNPPFP2P was the way to go.
Though it is just a tad harder to pronounce than FIOS.
PHP Hypertext Preproccesor.
GNU Not Unix.
Lame Ain't an MP3 Encoder.
Wine Is Not an Emulator.
Recursive acronyms are fun.
"Proactive network Provider Participation for P2P"
shouldn't that be P5P?
4 = for
maybe
They're only counting the first p of each word, else it'd be P6P.
All the Ps are misleading. P2P is short for P to P, the 2 has nothing to do with the number of Ps. That would be redundant as they are both written out, just as you don't write WWW3 (a type of RAS Syndrome).
So P4P is short for PPP for P2P, which makes sense. I didn't like it at first, but I think they've got it spot on.
isn't this just going to be a back ended way for verizon to implement content filtering?
no
From DSLreports
"Before FiOS users rush to the Pirate Bay to download the latest AXXO release, note that Verizon says they'll only be using this technology for "legit" P2P content distribution. That said, Verizon has stated they won't be blocking or impeding traditional P2P use."
But will it be better then Usenet?
They should have called if BFP, Big Fu*%'ing Pipes. I wonder how "legit" Verizon would see sharing a large number of "trial versions" of software packages. Because I just want to trying them out for a "limited" time really....
This is all well and good, but, how many legit P2P sites are there?
at least it is not a KIRFer then, when P2P is not enough.
it will be great if it benefits the existing P2P.
Somehow I doubt that Verizon will be making it easier and faster to do the thing that P2P is primarily used for (that is, pirating movies and software). Just a thought.
If it comes only to "select clients to prevent piracy" I can garaunte that it will be a failure. People use peer-to-peer for stuff that providers don't want them using it for (not necessarily stuff they shouldn't). For instance, my main use of torrents is to download episodes of shows I missed. I normally only watch them that one time. However, I don't do that for lost anymore because it's better to use the online client at ABC. ABC has gotten it a little bit and is cashing in on it with the advertising during the online viewing. Damn smart of them.
This would sound nice to me if I didn't have a Verizon mobile phone. Instead, I picture Verizon walling this off into a crappy little Verizon store so you can buy their ringtones and movie clips for a price too high and not get the content you were looking for.
Did you read the article?
Nothing to do with VZW.
This is DSL and FiOS.
This isn't new, or even novel. The concept of choosing P2P peers based on network distance isn't exactly revolutionary, and has been done before. In fact, a coworker of mine wrote an implementation of such a system several years ago.
Yes, it reduces the bandwidth required for a P2P system (for ISPs), but it doesn't necessarily speed it up for the end-user.
Though it doesn't necessarily speed up the download, the overall reduction in network load will speed up everyone's connections.
Only assuming an ISP's links are saturated. Which they never are, with a good carrier.
Umm... Correct me if I am wrong (as I know you all will) but isn't IPv4 supposed to be doing this automatically?
Last I cared to check, somewhere in the gigantic IPv4 address it has location info and routing information in it--so that NAT would be eliminated altogether. Every device would have it's own unique address forever and ever.
All this seems to be doing is taking routers and switches, networking them together and letting them check to see which ones are loaded--something that is called LOAD BALANCING and that they (should?) be using now.
i think u're referring to ipv6 here...
Yes, quite right. My mistake.
Proactive network Provider Participation ?
or P2P * 2 = P2(2)P = P4P?
does anyone else see how they are covering up their cheap ass imagination with acronym that doesn't even match..
i have to give you that
Proactive network Provider Participation... thats 3 Ps.. then we break down P2P into Peer 2 Peer. Take the first Peer and add it to the 3 Ps, and we have 4 Ps, then transform it into P4 and tack on the last Peer. P4P
the naming is just a hype (like KIRFer's MP5, MP7, etc etc.)
The short of it is that an ISP would run a server(or possibly publish to a server) that would hold an updated map of their network which a "tracker" server would then query. The tracker then would prioritize neighboring clients over non-neighboring clients. The overall effect is that ISP external transit drops and client downloads speed up. Again, thats the "simple" version.
However, how it gets implemented, and how open the "map" servers are is TBD.
I can say that initial tests have been amazingly good for both the ISP and the clients.
Somehow I'm reminded of a sales pitch I heard years ago from some idiot working for our company (in sales, of course) selling fiber-space and how we used "teeny-tiny packets" and had "bigger,better bandwidth." If you want a laugh, say it kinda quickly.
when i got to that secret level thing it was the happiest day of my life.
good news to those who download illegal movies and music eh?
how about just calling it advanced P2P..just a suggestion!
I bet the Chinese will soon have its own version. It might be called P6P, they will soon share their CH-DVDs and Mp7 files at lightning fast speeds.
Now Verizon needs to fix my FiOS upload speeds and everything will be cool.