Peer-to-peer (P2P) filtering products are supposed to provide two functions critical to ensuring the continued successful expansion of the Internet.
First, they provide Internet service providers (ISPs) with a way to take back control of their networks by preventing residential users of their services from gobbling up vast amounts of capacity using bandwidth-hogging peer-to peer (P2P) applications. Such apps often use entire multi-megabit DSL bandwidth, continuously, whereas most ISPs design their networks on the assumption that an average user will need as little as 100 kbit/s.
Second, they give the music industry a powerful new weapon in their fight to prevent widespread use of P2P tools by consumers to illegally exchange copyrighted video and music content over the Internet. Entertainment mega-corporations see the need to win this battle as critical in stanching their hemorrhaging revenues.
So the two groups have different needs: ISPs primarily care about network capacity; entertainment companies would like to prevent the exchange of copyrighted content.
But the solution for both is supposed to be the same: a new generation of P2P filters (also sometimes known as Deep Packet Inspection devices, or DPI) that are installed on the Internet by ISPs and other telecom operators, controlling and reducing the amount of Internet P2P file sharing traffic. More than two dozen vendors now claim to have products that fit this bill – but are they up to the job?
To find out, both Internet Evolution and SNEP (the Syndicat National de l’Édition Phonographique, an organization that represents the interests of the French music industry), commissioned an independent test lab, the European Advanced Networking Test Center AG (EANTC) , to test the functionality and performance of P2P filters. The focus on the test was on large-scale devices, or so-called "carrier grade" systems – ones designed to filter vast amounts of peer-to-peer traffic on the Internet, in real time.
The results for the products tested were interesting. But perhaps even more significant was the number of companies that declined to have anything to do with the test, or withdrew their products after starting the test process.
EANTC invited 28 vendors of P2P filtering products to participate in the evaluation. The group included all of the established players and market leaders – Allot Communications (Nasdaq: ALLT), Cisco Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: CSCO), Ellacoya Networks (recently acquired by Arbor Networks Inc. ), F5 Networks Inc. (Nasdaq: FFIV), Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. , Narus Inc. , and Sandvine Inc. (London: SAND; Toronto: SVC) – as well as a host of lesser known startups. One invitee, Packeteer Inc. (Nasdaq: PKTR), did not respond to the invitation. Another, Juniper Networks Inc. (Nasdaq: JNPR), responded that it did not sell a specialized P2P filter appropriate for the test – which is surprising and noteworthy in and of itself.
The test campaign took more than six months, from April to October 2007, and participation was free – EANTC, Internet Evolution, and SNEP footed the bill. Various ground rules were established to ensure both a fair playing field for all the participants, and to ensure that the best possible results were achieved by the equipment being evaluated. For example, vendors were encouraged to have their own product engineers present to set up their equipment, monitor the test process, and tune their devices as necessary.
Nevertheless, of the 28 vendors invited, only five agreed to take part, and only under the condition that if they didn't like their results they could withdraw from the test and not be included in this report. In the event, three vendors chose to exercise their right of veto because each of their results were – ummm... how to put this? – "not perfect" for various reasons.
Only two vendors were brave enough to agree with publication: Arbor/Ellacoya, based in the U.S.A., and ipoque GmbH , a German vendor. Both the Arbor/Ellacoya E30 and Ipoque PRX-5G devices showed excellent performance and very good P2P detection and regulation capabilities. However, neither turned in perfect detection performance across the whole range of more and less popular P2P protocols, so there is still some room for improvement.
But what does the absence of other vendors say about the state of the P2P filtering market? Nothing good. It's quite clear that most vendors are still in an early phase of product deployment, and that their products' limited scale and functions have a long way to go before they catch up with the marketing and sales materials that their manufacturers are using to describe them.
OK, so many of them were probably scared off by the substantial scale and rigorous demands to be put on their wares by our test bed. Unfortunately, the test was designed to precisely emulate current conditions on telecom networks, as well as those that ISPs will face in the near future.
With two load generators and analyzers from Shenick Network Systems Ltd. and Ixia (Nasdaq: XXIA), seven MPLS/IP routers (mainly Cisco devices) and a total maximum load of 7 million application sessions, we emulated a realistic mix of Web applications and a diverse set of peer-to-peer applications. The aggregated traffic model enabled us to assess the filtering performance typically required at large Internet service provider networks.
Based on the response to Internet Evolution's ground-breaking test of P2P filters, both ISPs and the music industry will have to wait a while before the power tools they need to beat back bandwidth hogs or stymie copyright violators are widely available. For now, the advantage is with P2P perps that want all-they-can-eat capacity and easy access to pirated materials.
A lot students transpire the responsibility to professional writers because they lack the talent to write a good paper about Peer-to-Peer Filters so that the argument why you need to use plagiarism checker, but such guys like composer don't do that. Thanks a lot for the article
As mentioned in a personal message before, we would be happy to test your product in a second round of the test. All carrier-grade filtering solutions are invited to participate.
For the first round, we invited all vendors active in the P2P filtering market back in Q1/2007.
Broadband access "flat rates" would need to be much more expensive if they would cater for P2P usage for everybody. The consumer flat rate is offered assuming that the consumers do not download stuff at max speed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Such real flat rates are offered for businesses at much higher prices... Unfortunately the P2P residential users are not willing to pay hundreds of dollars per month like a business.
Therefore ISPs have to use a hybrid cost model where the occasional users contribute to the cost of network bandwidth supplied for the P2P users. Without disclosing any individual statistics, typically less than 1% of the broadband access users generate more than 60% of the network bandwidth.
The most expensive network cost are the external uplinks (Internet commercial exchange [CIX] peers). Quite a few major P2P seeds are located in remote locations - P2P traffic is usually worldwide distributed. Filtering does not actually save bandwidth, it helps to reduce the speed at which P2P bandwidth demand is growing, specifically on the uplinks. This is why ISPs are interested in this technology.
"Such apps often use entire multi-megabit DSL bandwidth, continuously, whereas most ISPs design their networks on the assumption that an average user will need as little as 100 kbit/s."
While I agree that the industry protect their copyrighted material, and also enterprises should be able to filter the bandwidth used by their employees (a employee should not be downloading mp3 or movies during work, right?), I question the motivation of ISPs.
If I pay for, let's say, a 3MB connection, am I supposed to just browse and e-mail? Why can't I plug into every bit of my multimegabit connection? Or if ISPs can reduce costs by filtering and improving the reliability of theirs networks, will these gains be shared with its users by lowering connection prices? I bet no. It will only improve their profit margin. Sell 3MB, expect each user don't surpass 10% of it and you can have a lot more paying users than your nominal capacity would permit.
Well you can't say it's a shame for the researchers on the basis of the vendors they selected for the trial test. I believe their selection was based on P2P filters that are making all the hype in the markets. You've admitted that yours is a new technology and probably might not make the break yet in the media.
But it's great to hear that your product is really working at least according to your evaluation and the fact that you can offer it for testing shows your confidence in it delivering value for money. Let's hear from the authors of the report on how your products works and then may be you can see a real change in fortune for SafeMedia.
It's a real shame that they only looked at major vendors and not new technology companies.
SafeMedia developed a technology solution that detects and blocks over (650) P2P clients including those that use encryption and port hop to avoid detection.
Our network security appliance was fully tested by a major US based ISP and they confirmed it blocks everything. The size of the testing suite used for this report was not large by our standards. We can handle 40GB backbones and maintain a low latency of .4Ms.
What's different in our technology is we don't use DPI and look at layer 7 (content).
We'll ship SNEP a unit tonight if they want to see real results.
that's really interesting news,not sure that it's good.
where will I download my music:))))
But even if this works among US ISP I doubt that will work in the world.Or people will invent something new that let them get free stuff.Nothing promotes the development of technologies more than a desire for free stuff:))))
Many thanks for this wonderful report. As a research student i know very well how difficult it can be to simulate actual operational conditions in laboratory experiments. As i perused through your report partly due to the exigencies of time, i was really impressed at how detailed and honestly you went about conducting this reasearch. It's a big shame to the other vendors who pull out. I think it was an excellent window of opportunity for them to have honestly evaluate the performance of their product and possibly get feedbacks that would have helped them to improve upon their products. May be they are very aware of the limitations of their products.
My question though is are these filters technologically feasible? With Congress and other legislative bodies increasingly calling on ISPs to instal these filters in their infrastructure, some P2P companies have come under intense criticism for the failure of their devices to perform as expected. In defence, they are simply saying that people are expecting them to do the impossible:
Although the signs are good for the two products that made through your tests, do you see in the forseeable future better filters coming to the markets or the challenges to produce better filters is so great that it will thwart any futurte breakthrough in this area?
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
If you’re a slightly gray, mid-level manager who travels a lot, you may be on the way up and worthy of professional respect, but one thing you most definitely are not is “cool.” Still, while today’s youth may think you just crawled out of a paleolithic cave, there may be hope. The iPad from Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL) (supreme arbiter of coolness) just might make you older guys (or actually old guys like me) cool.
As we well know, the online echo chamber and its increasingly viral and social components can magnify the propagation speed and distribution of stories and rumors, whether true or false.
In his recent Congressional testimony, Dennis Blair, the U.S. director of national intelligence, stated that the U.S. is "severely threatened" by cyber attacks and that the recent Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) attacks should serve as a wake-up call.
Fatal System Error, the book just released by West-coast-based journalist Joseph Menn, is really a public policy statement written as a thriller for a wider reading public. UPDATED 2:45 PM
Smarter Collaboration: How to Thrive in a Challenging Business Environment Market conditions are changing faster than ever, and organizations need to improve their agility and adaptability in order to provide better service and improve processes. The ability to work with customers, business partners, and employees as effectively as possible - while at the same time holding down costs - is a key to success. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
Research shows that the youth of today like Facebook – but not blogging or Twitter. Does that mean Facebook has won, or just that it's not yet out of favor? Will all the services we see today fade into Ovaltine-or-Wheaties status in just a few years?
What kinds of companies are doing the most innovation in the data center? Turns out it's midtier enterprises that are taking the "Just Right" approach.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
