4 ms·

The comparison is confusing... "Netflix", "Google Cloud", "HTTP", "SSL = OTHER". Aren't Netflix and Google cloud using http and https? Also, no mention of vide

The comparison is confusing... "Netflix", "Google Cloud", "HTTP", "SSL = OTHER". Aren't Netflix and Google cloud using http and https? Also, no mention of video chat. I believe google hangout, zoom.us, appear.in etc... work in peer to peer fashion when conferencing one on one, which is probably more difficult to measure, but I'm sure are significant contributor towards upstream usage. This is really important because the upstream bandwidth offered by ISPs right now is ridiculous, and if the perception is that only "pirate" using BitTorrent use upstream, it's not going to get better any time soon.

jo909 11y ago
>The comparison is confusing... "Netflix", "Google Cloud", "HTTP", "SSL = OTHER". Aren't Netflix and Google cloud using http and https? Obviously this means "all HTTP(S) traffic we could not associate otherwise" > Also, no mention of video chat. I believe google hangout, zoom.us, appear.in etc... work in peer to peer fashion when conferencing one on one, which is probably more difficult to measure, but I'm sure are significant contributor towards upstream usage. Facetime is listed as 2.55%. I would guess all other video chat providers are way smaller. > This is really important because the upstream bandwidth offered by ISPs right now is ridiculous, and if the perception is that only "pirate" using BitTorrent use upstream, it's not going to get better any time soon. Well you could also say that over 70% of upstream bandwith is used for other protocols.
Xylakant 11y ago
> This is really important because the upstream bandwidth offered by ISPs right now is ridiculous I see it as an indication that the current internet infrastructure is geared towards delivering content from a centralized instance rather than peer-to-peer services such as video chat, content sharing, streaming etc. Many consumer ISPs explicitly forbid serving content. It's a pity since some applications would benefit from symmetric lines. However, if everybody would be running their own home server we'd require a level of competence that's just not there in the general population - and probably never will since not everybody can be an IT expert. (just like I tend to rely on medical professionals if I need to). In that respect, I find the notion of "X dominates the upstream" when X is one of the few applications where people currently use upstream on a constant basis pretty useless and unsurprising.
- icebraining 11y ago
  However, if everybody would be running their own home server we'd require a level of competence that's just not there in the general population No, we'd just have to redesign the server software to stop assuming the operator has a high level of competence - just like Bittorrent servers already don't, in fact.
  - dorfsmay 11y ago
    I think we're going to see more and more upstream traffic, and security issues associated with it, from personal NAS appliances.
  - Xylakant 11y ago
    The competence is required to maintain the basic OS. Computers are highly complicated things. I'd bet that sufficient machines get attacked via BT clients. I'm skeptical we'll get to the point where any appliance that is at least moderately complicated will reach the state where it won't have the occasional security issue to which the user must respond. We might get to a point where that's getting better, but I'm afraid we're still far far far out.
    - sp332 11y ago
      Like a chromebook experience for servers? Minimal software, everything signed in a revokable way, auto-updating?
    - sandworm101 11y ago
      Attacks via bittorent clients, legitimate clients from legitimate sources, are extremely rare. Torrent clients only perform a handful of tasks, a very limited profile for threats. Oldschool P2p (ie Kazza and bearshare-style sharing schemes) are a different story, although even they are rarely attacked successfully.
tushar-r 11y ago
DPI signatures are not exact. They probably got the numbers from the reporting servers on the ISP's and then formatted it the best they could.

jo909 11y ago

>The comparison is confusing... "Netflix", "Google Cloud", "HTTP", "SSL = OTHER". Aren't Netflix and Google cloud using http and https? Obviously this means "all HTTP(S) traffic we could not associate otherwise" > Also, no mention of video chat. I believe google hangout, zoom.us, appear.in etc... work in peer to peer fashion when conferencing one on one, which is probably more difficult to measure, but I'm sure are significant contributor towards upstream usage. Facetime is listed as 2.55%. I would guess all other video chat providers are way smaller. > This is really important because the upstream bandwidth offered by ISPs right now is ridiculous, and if the perception is that only "pirate" using BitTorrent use upstream, it's not going to get better any time soon. Well you could also say that over 70% of upstream bandwith is used for other protocols.

Xylakant 11y ago

> This is really important because the upstream bandwidth offered by ISPs right now is ridiculous I see it as an indication that the current internet infrastructure is geared towards delivering content from a centralized instance rather than peer-to-peer services such as video chat, content sharing, streaming etc. Many consumer ISPs explicitly forbid serving content. It's a pity since some applications would benefit from symmetric lines. However, if everybody would be running their own home server we'd require a level of competence that's just not there in the general population - and probably never will since not everybody can be an IT expert. (just like I tend to rely on medical professionals if I need to). In that respect, I find the notion of "X dominates the upstream" when X is one of the few applications where people currently use upstream on a constant basis pretty useless and unsurprising.

icebraining 11y ago
However, if everybody would be running their own home server we'd require a level of competence that's just not there in the general population No, we'd just have to redesign the server software to stop assuming the operator has a high level of competence - just like Bittorrent servers already don't, in fact.
- dorfsmay 11y ago
  I think we're going to see more and more upstream traffic, and security issues associated with it, from personal NAS appliances.
- Xylakant 11y ago
  The competence is required to maintain the basic OS. Computers are highly complicated things. I'd bet that sufficient machines get attacked via BT clients. I'm skeptical we'll get to the point where any appliance that is at least moderately complicated will reach the state where it won't have the occasional security issue to which the user must respond. We might get to a point where that's getting better, but I'm afraid we're still far far far out.
  - sp332 11y ago
    Like a chromebook experience for servers? Minimal software, everything signed in a revokable way, auto-updating?
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    Attacks via bittorent clients, legitimate clients from legitimate sources, are extremely rare. Torrent clients only perform a handful of tasks, a very limited profile for threats. Oldschool P2p (ie Kazza and bearshare-style sharing schemes) are a different story, although even they are rarely attacked successfully.

tushar-r 11y ago

DPI signatures are not exact. They probably got the numbers from the reporting servers on the ISP's and then formatted it the best they could.