DOCSLIB.ORG

Monitoring Bittorrent Swarms Dissertação Para a Obtenção De

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Monitoring Bittorrent Swarms Dissertação Para a Obtenção De Monitoring BitTorrent Swarms António Manuel Rebelo Alves Homem Ferreira Dissertação para a obtenção de Grau de Mestre em Engenharia de Redes de Comunicações Júri Presidente: Prof. Doutor Paulo Jorge Pires Ferreira Orientador: Prof. Doutor Ricardo Jorge Feliciano Lopes Pereira Co-orientador: Prof. Doutor Fernando Henrique Corte Real Mira da Silva Vogais: Prof. Doutor João Coelho Garcia September 2011 ii Acknowledgments To all those who helped me and supported me over this journey, from teachers to collegues, friends to family, i thank you all. iii iv Resumo Os protocolos Peer-to-Peer, especialmente o BitTorrent, sao˜ responsaveis´ por uma grande maioria do trafego gerado na Internet, tendo um grande impacto sobre o trafego´ inter-ISP e, consequentemente, nos custos de peering dos ISPs. Atraves´ da monitorizac¸ao˜ de mais de 3200 enxames reais num ambiente de Internet, descobrimos que existe uma grande quantidade de localidade que pode ser explorada e utilizada para diminuir o trafego´ inter-ISP. Discutimos a relac¸ao˜ entre o tamanho do enxame, a popularidade do conteudo´ e a localidade existente e demonstramos que, mesmo enxames de pequeno tamanho temˆ propriedades de localidade. Tambem´ observamos´ que existem enxames que partilham conteudo´ espec´ıfico de uma regiao,˜ demonstrando uma elevada localidade. Durante a experienciaˆ tambem´ descobrimos que existe uma quantidade de conteudo´ repetido a ser partilhado na rede. Varios´ peers temˆ a tendenciaˆ de publicar o mesmo conteudo´ atraves´ de ficheiros de torrent diferentes, criando varios´ enxames independentes que acabam a partilhar um grande numero´ de partes comuns. Esta redundanciaˆ pode ser explorada de forma a aumentar a disponibilidade dos dados e a diversidade de origem dos mesmos, bem como a localidade existente. Para explorar esta redundancia,ˆ propomos uma nova tecnica´ com o nome de Partial Swarm Merger, que adiciona um novo componente a` infra-estrutura BitTorrent, permitindo que os peers possam descobrir outros enxames que partilhem conteudo´ comum. Com esta informac¸ao,˜ os diferentes peers podem participar nos diferentes enxames, anunciando e solicitando de cada enxame as partes em comum com o seu download. Desta forma, a disponibilidade das partes em comum aos varios´ enxames, aumentara.´ Palavras-chave: BitTorrent, Peer-to-Peer, Monitorizac¸ao,˜ Localidade, Conteudo´ repetido, Disponibilidade v vi Abstract Peer-to-Peer protocols, specially BitTorrent, account for most traffic generated in the Internet, having a great impact on inter-ISP traffic and thus ISPs’ peering costs. However, through locality mechanisms, P2P traffic can be contained close by in the network and even in the same ISP, decreasing inter-ISP traffic. Through the monitoring of over 3200 live Internet swarms, we found that there is a lot of locality that can be exploited and used to decrease inter-ISP traffic. We discuss the relationship between the swarm size, content’s popularity and the existing locality and find that even small swarms have some locality properties. We also observed swarms sharing content specific to a region and thus showing a great amount of locality. During the experiment we also discovered that there is a significant amount of repeated content being shared. Various publishers tend to publish the same content through different torrent files, creating independent swarms that end up sharing a large number of common parts. This redundancy can be exploited in order to increase data availability and source diversity, as well as the existing locality. To deal with this redundancy, we propose a novel technique, called Partial Swarm Merger, which adds a new component to the BitTorrent infrastructure, allowing peers to learn about swarms with common content. With this information, peers could combine the different swarms, announcing and requesting from each swarm the pieces in common with their download. This will increase the availability of the parts which are common to the several swarms. Keywords: BitTorrent, Peer-to-Peer, Monitoring, Measurements, Locality awareness, Repeated content, Availability vii viii Contents Acknowledgments........................................... iii Resumo.................................................v Abstract................................................. vii List of Tables.............................................. xi List of Figures............................................. xiv 1 Introduction 1 1.1 The Problem...........................................1 1.2 Work description.........................................2 1.3 Structure of this thesis......................................3 1.4 Publications............................................3 2 BitTorrent Protocol 5 3 State of the art 9 3.1 Locality Solutions.........................................9 3.1.1 Locality through Client..................................9 3.1.2 Locality through peer and ISP cooperation....................... 11 3.1.3 Locality through ISP alone............................... 12 3.1.4 Comparison between solutions............................. 14 3.2 Locality studies.......................................... 14 3.2.1 Studies of BitTorrent’s locality.............................. 14 3.2.2 Comparison between related studies.......................... 16 3.3 Content availability........................................ 17 4 Methodology for gathering and analysing data 21 4.1 System architecture....................................... 21 4.2 Data analysis methodology................................... 23 5 Results 25 5.1 Content Analysis......................................... 25 5.1.1 Content pollution..................................... 25 5.1.2 Content repetition.................................... 26 ix 5.2 Locality Analysis......................................... 31 5.2.1 Repeated content.................................... 31 5.2.2 All content......................................... 33 5.2.3 Regional content..................................... 36 5.2.4 Large swarms...................................... 38 5.2.5 Two-hour period..................................... 38 5.3 Peer and Tracker behavior.................................... 41 5.3.1 Tracker behavior..................................... 41 5.3.2 Peer behavior....................................... 42 5.4 Summary............................................. 44 6 Partial Swarm Merger 47 6.1 PSM................................................ 47 6.2 Use Case............................................. 49 7 Conclusions and future work 51 7.1 Conclusions............................................ 51 7.2 Future Work............................................ 52 Bibliography 56 x List of Tables 3.1 Comparison between some solutions already implemented.................. 15 3.2 Comparison between studies to the locality potential in BitTorrent.............. 18 5.1 Torrent aggregation benefits................................... 32 xi xii List of Figures 2.1 (1) Obtaining peers from tracker to be able to join the swarm, (2) exchanging data with other peers and (3) obtaining more active peers on the swarm................6 4.1 Work flow of the system...................................... 22 5.1 CDF with the percentage of unique pieces for each torrent file................ 26 5.2 Maximum swarm size and number of seeders for all swarms representing pollution with a maximum swarm size value above 50 peers.......................... 26 5.3 Time, in hours, swarms sharing polluted content take to drop to 20% of their maximum size................................................. 27 5.4 CDF with the shared percentage of pieces per number of torrent pairs with at least one common piece.......................................... 27 5.5 CDF with the shared MegaBytes per number of torrent pairs with at least one common piece................................................ 28 5.6 Number of torrents published by team............................. 29 5.7 Histogram of the content repetition frequency......................... 29 5.8 Average number of peers per content.............................. 30 5.9 Average number of seeders per content............................. 30 5.10 Number of peers per country for similar content........................ 31 5.11 Number of peers per ISP for similar content........................... 32 5.12 Increase in swarm size at each ISP by aggregating similar content.............. 33 5.13 CDF with the content size for all content considered as being pollution............ 34 5.14 Average number of peers obtained and average number of peers per country for the one- day data aggregation period................................... 34 5.15 Average number of peers obtained and average number of peers per ISP for the one-day data aggregation period...................................... 35 5.16 Distribution of the percentage of the median number of peers that belong to the same country or ISP for the one-day data aggregation period.................... 35 5.17 Countries with an average above 30 peers per day for a regional torrent........... 36 5.18 ISPs with an average above 10 daily peers for a regional torrent............... 36 xiii 5.19 Regional torrents with 60% of all peers belonging to the same country, at least 75% of the times................................................ 37 5.20 Regional torrents with 30% of all peers belonging to the same ISP, at least 75% of the times. 37 5.21 Torrent size and maximum number of seeders for swarms with a maximum number of seeders above 5000.......................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • From Sony to SOPA: the Technology-Content Divide
    From Sony to SOPA: The Technology-Content Divide The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation John Palfrey, Jonathan Zittrain, Kendra Albert, and Lisa Brem, From Sony to SOPA: The Technology-Content Divide, Harvard Law School Case Studies (2013). Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:11029496 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Articles, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#OAP http://casestudies.law.harvard.edu By John Palfrey, Jonathan Zittrain, Kendra Albert, and Lisa Brem February 23, 2013 From Sony to SOPA: The Technology-Content Divide Background Note Copyright © 2013 Harvard University. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means – electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise – without permission. "There was a time when lawyers were on one side or the other of the technology content divide. Now, the issues are increasingly less black-and-white and more shades of gray. You have competing issues for which good lawyers provide insights on either side." — Laurence Pulgram, partner, Fenwick & Westi Since the invention of the printing press, there has been tension between copyright holders, who seek control over and monetary gain from their creations, and technology builders, who want to invent without worrying how others might use that invention to infringe copyrights.
    [Show full text]
  • A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of The
    A Framework for Application Specific Knowledge Engines Item Type text; Electronic Dissertation Authors Lai, Guanpi Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 25/09/2021 03:58:57 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/204290 A FRAMEWORK FOR APPLICATION SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE ENGINES by Guanpi Lai _____________________ A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF SYSTEMS AND INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2010 2 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE As members of the Dissertation Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation prepared by Guanpi Lai entitled A Framework for Application Specific Knowledge Engines and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 4/28/2010 Fei-Yue Wang _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 4/28/2010 Ferenc Szidarovszky _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 4/28/2010 Jian Liu Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent
    [Show full text]
  • International Intellectual Property Alliance®
    I NTERNATIONAL I NTELLECTUAL P ROPERTY A LLIANCE® 1818 N STREET, NW, 8TH FLOOR · WASHINGTON, DC 20036 · TEL (202) 355-7924 · FAX (202) 355-7899 · WWW.IIPA.COM · EMAIL: [email protected] September 14, 2012 Filed via www.regulations.gov, Docket No. USTR–2012–0011 Stanford K. McCoy, Esq. Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Intellectual Property and Innovation Office of the U.S. Trade Representative Washington, DC 20508 Re: IIPA Written Submission Re: 2012 Special 301 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets: Request for Public Comments, 77 Fed. Reg. 48583 (August 14, 2012) Dear Mr. McCoy: In response to the August 14, 2012 Federal Register notice referenced above, the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA)1 provides the Special 301 Subcommittee with the following written comments to provide examples of Internet and physical “notorious markets” – those “where counterfeit or pirated products are prevalent to such a degree that the market exemplifies the problem of marketplaces that deal in infringing goods and help sustain global piracy and counterfeiting.” We hope our filing will assist the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in “identifying potential Internet and physical notorious markets that exist outside the United States and that may be included in the 2012 Notorious Markets List.” We express appreciation to USTR for publishing a notorious markets list as an “Out of Cycle Review” separately from the annual Special 301 Report. This list has successfully identified key online and physical marketplaces that are involved in intellectual property rights infringements, and has led to some positive developments. These include closures of some Internet websites whose businesses were built on illegal conduct, greater cooperation from some previously identified “notorious” and other suspect sites, and the facilitation of licensing agreements for legitimate distribution of creative materials.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Search Engines
    A blog network is a group of blogs that are connected to each other in a network. A blog network can either be a group of loosely connected blogs, or a group of blogs that are owned by the same company. The purpose of such a network is usually to promote the other blogs in the same network and therefore increase the advertising revenue generated from online advertising on the blogs.[1] List of search engines From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For knowing popular web search engines see, see Most popular Internet search engines. This is a list of search engines, including web search engines, selection-based search engines, metasearch engines, desktop search tools, and web portals and vertical market websites that have a search facility for online databases. Contents 1 By content/topic o 1.1 General o 1.2 P2P search engines o 1.3 Metasearch engines o 1.4 Geographically limited scope o 1.5 Semantic o 1.6 Accountancy o 1.7 Business o 1.8 Computers o 1.9 Enterprise o 1.10 Fashion o 1.11 Food/Recipes o 1.12 Genealogy o 1.13 Mobile/Handheld o 1.14 Job o 1.15 Legal o 1.16 Medical o 1.17 News o 1.18 People o 1.19 Real estate / property o 1.20 Television o 1.21 Video Games 2 By information type o 2.1 Forum o 2.2 Blog o 2.3 Multimedia o 2.4 Source code o 2.5 BitTorrent o 2.6 Email o 2.7 Maps o 2.8 Price o 2.9 Question and answer .
    [Show full text]
  • Searching for Malware in Bittorrent∗
    Searching for Malware in BitTorrent∗ Andrew D. Berns and Eunjin (EJ) Jung April 24, 2008 Abstract One of the most widely publicized aspects of computer security has been the presence and propagation of malware. Malware has adapted to many different changing technologies, in- cluding recently-popular P2P systems. While previous work has examined P2P networks and protocols like KaZaA and Gnutella for malware, little has been done so far that examines BitTor- rent. This project explored BitTorrent for the presence of malware, and discovered a significant portion of malware in the downloaded file set. Statistics on torrents infected with malware were gathered and analyzed to find patterns that are helpful in creating basic filtering heuristics. While these heuristics may work in simple cases, several easy ways they can be defeated were found. 1 Introduction Recently, peer-to-peer networks have emerged as a popular paradigm for Internet applications. In fact, a study in 2005 estimated that P2P traffic accounted for around 70% of all traffic on the Internet [2]. P2P technology is finding new applications as it grows, including voice-over-IP systems and streaming video delivery. While P2P has found several different uses, perhaps the most widely-known use is for file sharing. One concern with P2P file sharing is that it can be used to distribute malware (malicious software, such as worms, viruses, and rootkits). On the one hand, users have access to huge amounts of data, while on the other hand, this data can easily be tainted with viruses, worms, and other forms of malware. An important consideration, then, is if the concern about malware in P2P networks is warranted, and if it is, are there ways to protect a computer and minimize the risk of malware infection from P2P networks.
    [Show full text]
  • The Blocking of File Appropriate Tool, Or a Fruitless Effort to Saf E Blocking Of
    Name: Samaa Kanani ANR: 672673 Supervisor: M. Schellekens Program: Law and Technology LLM Word count: [13723 ] Master Thesis The blocking of file -sharing websites by ISPs – an appropriate tool, or a fruitless effort to safeguard copyrights? 1 INTRODUCTION 3 1.1 PIRACY 4 1.1.1 WHAT IS BIT TORRENT ? 5 1.2 PIRACY IN THE NETHERLANDS 6 2 – THE REASON BEHIND PEOPLES DOWNLOADING BEHAVIOR 10 2.1 FILESHARING 2©12 REPORT 10 2.2 CORE DATA REPORT 12 2.2.1 TV-SHOWS 12 2.2.2 MOVIES 12 2.2.3 MUSIC 13 2.3 ATTITUDE TOWARDS ONLINE PIRACY SURVEY (ATOPS) 14 2.3.1 FINDINGS OF ATOPS 15 2.3.2 ASSESSING THE THREE MAIN REASONS FOR PIRATING MEDIA CONTENT 19 2.3.3 ATTITUDE TOWARDS LEGAL DOWNLOADS AS AN ALTERNATIVE 20 3 BREIN V ZIGGO & XS4ALL 22 3.1 CASE SUMMARY 22 4 APPROPRIATENESS OF BREIN V ZIGGO/XS4ALL 25 4.1 PROPORTIONALITY 25 4.2 SUBSIDIARITY 27 4.3 EFFECTIVENESS 29 5. ALTERNATIVES TO ILLEGAL DOWNLOADING 34 5.2 (M ICRO ) DONATIONS 34 5.3 CROWD FUNDING 35 5.4 PRIVATE COPYING LEVY 35 6 CONCLUDING REMARKS 37 WORKS CITED 39 2 1 Introduction The Internet has changed the way in which people obtain and consume information. It has also created new and easy ways for media to be accessed. But this ability to access media content over the Internet, also gave rise to online piracy. Copyrights holders are often hindered from fully exercising their copyrights, since their materials are being distributed illegally online. In recent years, the courts have seen an influx of copyright cases linked to file sharing websites which host illegally obtained media content.
    [Show full text]
  • Top 10 Most Popular Torrent Sites of 2012
    Ernesto, January 7, 2012 Top 10 Most Popular Torrent Sites of 2012 Continuing a long-standing New Year’s tradition, we present an up-to-date list of the world’s most visited BitTorrent sites. At the start of 2012 The Pirate Bay continues to pull in the most visitors, followed by Torrentz and KickassTorrents. The six-year-old TV-torrent distribution group EZTV appears in the list for the first time, ranked 8th. Which torrent sites get the most visitors at the start of 2012? At first glance little seems to have changed, as many of the sites in the top 10 have been among the top torrent sites for more than half a decade. But moving down the list we see quite a few movers and shakers as well as three newcomers. The most notable absentee this year is TorrentReactor, one of the oldest torrent sites on the Internet. The Russian-based site hasbeen featured in the top 10 since 2006, but missed the cut in 2012. Last year’s best newcomer LimeTorrents took an even bigger hit in traffic and has dropped off the list as well. Below we have compiled a list of the 10 most-visited torrent sites at the start of the new year. Only public and English language sites are included. The list is based on traffic rank reports from Compete and Alexa. In addition, we include last year’s ranking for each of the 10 sites. 1. The Pirate Bay The Pirate Bay is probably the best known BitTorrent brand on the Internet.
    [Show full text]
  • Bittorrent (Protocol) 1 Bittorrent (Protocol)
    BitTorrent (protocol) 1 BitTorrent (protocol) BitTorrent is a peer-to-peer file sharing protocol used for distributing large amounts of data over the Internet. BitTorrent is one of the most common protocols for transferring large files and it has been estimated that peer-to-peer networks collectively have accounted for roughly 43% to 70% of all Internet traffic (depending on geographical location) as of February 2009.[1] Programmer Bram Cohen designed the protocol in April 2001 and released a first implementation on July 2, 2001.[2] It is now maintained by Cohen's company BitTorrent, Inc. There are numerous BitTorrent clients available for a variety of computing platforms. As of January 2012 BitTorrent has 150 million active users according to BitTorrent Inc.. Based on this the total number of monthly BitTorrent users can be estimated at more than a quarter billion.[3] At any given instant of time BitTorrent has, on average, more active users than YouTube and Facebook combined. (This refers to the number of active users at any instant and not to the total number of unique users.)[4][5] Description The BitTorrent protocol can be used to reduce the server and network impact of distributing large files. Rather than downloading a file from a single source server, the BitTorrent protocol allows users to join a "swarm" of hosts to download and upload from each other simultaneously. The protocol is an alternative to the older single source, multiple mirror sources technique for distributing data, and can work over networks with lower bandwidth so many small computers, like mobile phones, are able to efficiently distribute files to many recipients.
    [Show full text]
  • Increasing Bittorrent Content Availability
    Partial Swarm Merger: Increasing BitTorrent content availability Antonio´ Homem Ferreira∗, Ricardo Lopes Pereira∗ and Fernando M. Silva∗ ∗INESC-ID / Instituto Superior Tecnico´ Email: fantonio.h.ferreira,[email protected], [email protected] Abstract—The BitTorrent Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file sharing pro- covers an hash of each piece of the content and the names of tocol is a popular way to distribute digital content. It’s a the files being shared. This means that, even if two torrent files very scalable protocol, where the entry of new peers increases represent the exact same content, just by changing the name the total capacity of the network, especially after peers have finished their download and remain just as uploaders (known as of one of the files being shared (e.g. adding the team name seeders). Through the monitoring of live Internet swarms we have to the file’s name), the two files will generate two different discovered that there is a significant amount of repeated content infohashes and thus result in two different swarms that do not being shared. Various publishers tend to publish the same content share any data with each other. The same will happen if a new through different torrent files, creating independent swarms that file (e.g. a subtitles file for another language) is appended. end up having the exact same content or a large number of common parts. As such the size of each swarm is smaller than This study shows that this competition among teams results it could be, should there be only one swarm for that content.
    [Show full text]
  • Crawling Bittorrent Dhts for Fun and Profit
    Crawling BitTorrent DHTs for Fun and Profit Scott Wolchok and J. Alex Halderman The University of Michigan {swolchok, jhalderm}@eecs.umich.edu Abstract major torrent discovery sites and the major trackers [1,29] is feasible. Though a boon to copyright enforcement, this This paper presents two kinds of attacks based on crawl- capability reduces the privacy of BitTorrent downloaders ing the DHTs used for distributed BitTorrent tracking. by making it much harder to “hide in the crowd.” First, we show how pirates can use crawling to rebuild The BitTorrent community has responded to these BitTorrent search engines just a few hours after they are trends by deploying decentralizing tracking systems based shut down (crawling for fun). Second, we show how on distributed hash tables (DHTs). So far, their impact content owners can use related techniques to monitor pi- on privacy and copyright enforcement has been unclear. rates’ behavior in preparation for legal attacks and negate Distributed tracking is harder to disrupt through legal any perceived anonymity of the decentralized BitTorrent threats, but users still rely on centralized torrent discov- architecture (crawling for profit). ery sites that remain relatively easy targets. Some might We validate these attacks and measure their perfor- expect that decentralizing the tracking architecture would mance with a crawler we developed for the Vuze DHT. enhance privacy by making monitoring more difficult, but We find that we can establish a search engine with over the question has received little research attention to date. one million torrents in under two hours using a single In this work, we demonstrate how deployed distributed desktop PC.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Thesis
    J Ö N K Ö P I N G I NTERNATIONAL B U S I N E S S S CHOOL JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY Convert your enemy into a friend -Innovation strategies for collaboration between record companies and BitTorrent networks Master thesis within Business Administration Authors: Axel Andersen Emil Hristov Tutor: Desalegn Abraha Date: Jönköping, 2009 1 Acknowledgements This thesis is the final project the authors conduct at Jönköping International Business School as Master students. A special acknowledgement is given to our tutor Desalegn Abraha who has contributed with much guidance during the course of the thesis. This research could not have been conducted without the help from our interview respondents from the record companies, and BitTorrent networks. Thus a special thanks is directed towards the people that contributed with their time to help our research. Finally, the authors would like to thank the people who have read, and given comments on the thesis during the semester. Axel Andersen & Emil Hristov Jönköping International Business School, Sweden, June 2009 2 Master Thesis in Business Administration Title: Convert your enemy into a friend – Innovation strategies for collaboration between record companies and BitTorrent networks Authors: Axel Andersen, Emil Hristov Tutor: Desalegn Abraha Date: June 2009 Subject terms: BitTorrent networks, Record companies, Collaboration, File sharing, Changes in music industry, Community of creation, Crowdsourcing, Open innovations Abstract Problem: Record companies are facing a downturn in sales of music. This is seen as consequence of the growth of distribution of music through Internet by file sharing networks such as BitTorrent networks. On one side there are record companies who feel threatened of the illegal file sharing, and on the other side file sharing BitTorrent networks has increased dramatically in number of users since they first approached.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Computer Networks Stanford Univ CS144 Fall 2012
    An Introduction to Computer Networks Stanford Univ CS144 Fall 2012 PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information. PDF generated at: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 17:42:20 UTC Contents Articles --WEEK ONE-- 1 Introduction 2 Internet 2 What the Internet is 20 Internet protocol suite 20 OSI model 31 Internet Protocol 39 Transmission Control Protocol 42 User Datagram Protocol 59 Internet Control Message Protocol 65 Hypertext Transfer Protocol 68 Skype protocol 75 BitTorrent 81 Architectural Principles 95 Encapsulation (networking) 95 Packet switching 96 Hostname 100 End-to-end principle 102 Finite-state machine 107 --END WEEK ONE-- 118 References Article Sources and Contributors 119 Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 124 Article Licenses License 125 1 --WEEK ONE-- 2 Introduction Internet Routing paths through a portion of the Internet as visualized by the Opte Project General Access · Censorship · Democracy Digital divide · Digital rights Freedom · History · Network neutrality Phenomenon · Pioneers · Privacy Sociology · Usage Internet governance Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Internet Society (ISOC) Protocols and infrastructure Domain Name System (DNS) Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) IP address Internet exchange point Internet Protocol (IP) Internet Protocol Suite (TCP/IP) Internet service provider (ISP) Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Services Blogs · Microblogs · E-mail Fax · File sharing · File transfer Instant messaging · Gaming Podcast · TV · Search Shopping · Voice over IP (VoIP) Internet 3 World Wide Web Guides Outline Internet portal The Internet is a global system of interconnected computer networks that use the standard Internet protocol suite (often called TCP/IP, although not all applications use TCP) to serve billions of users worldwide.
    [Show full text]