Archive: Monthly Archives: February 2010
February 23rd, 2010 by Kriss Andsten; Category: Technology
Share

    Peer-to-peer is rather interesting to work with. Disruptive technologies always fascinate me, especially when it’s closely related to work so I can spend oodles of time on it. It’s also interesting to see the developments in the area – even if I don’t always agree with the sentiments of the researchers (for instance, I quite agree with “http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/analysis-of-bittorrent-utp-congestion-avoidance/” George Ou on BitTorrent – for now).

    Even so, there are good apples and bad apples. BitTorrent got an undeservingly bad name from people confusing content with transport. Even if I don’t think that they got it right with their be-nice-to-the-network idea, they tried. All in all, a sane actor.

    Pando, on the other hand, is an actor that seems quite sane – working in the P4P working group, seemingly trying to make a living out of a very kosher sort of P2P. The protocol isn’t too bloody bad either – the only problem is that parts of the client lodge themselveswhere it’s quite invisible on a Windows system. That, and the usual foray of “Would you want to make xyz.com your default website? Search page? Dog grooming service?”. Read more [+]

    February 18th, 2010 by Cam Cullen; Category: Industry, Technology
    Share

      I have spent the week in Barcelona attending the Mobile World Congress event. Anyone that thinks that there is no vibrancy in the networking world should have been here to see the show. The halls were packed, the booths were busy, and the meeting rooms fully booked. There is a lot of excitement about where the mobile industry is going, and the opportunity that exists for mobile providers going forward.

      One thing that jumped out at me during the show was the growing focus on the applications that are driving mobile usage. Yes, there was plenty of LTE hype, and lots of platform and operating system buzz (you should have seen the line for the Android developers lab as well as the push Microsoft made for Windows 7 Mobile), but focus seems to be shifting towards the applications that are driving mobile usage. The operators are keen on pushing new applications, because they will drive up data usage and increase the urge for users to upgrade their devices and service packages. Read more [+]

      February 8th, 2010 by Cam Cullen; Category: Industry, Technology
      Share

        There is a lot of talk in the industry about DPI and mobile operators. There was an article on Light Reading in 2008 titled “DPI (hearts) LTE” that explored this topic. The general belief is that mobile operators MUST have DPI in their network to survive and compete, due to a number of bandwidth and usage challenges. Operators are bracing for users that will treat their mobile connection in the same way that they use their fixed broadband networks today (i.e. streaming video, file downloads, peer-to-peer, etc). Since laptops are expected to be one of the earliest LTE devices supported in many of the early LTE deployments, the data requirements of LTE must be addressed from the initial deployment.

        The debate has been stoked by the inclusion of a loose requirement in the SAE-GW for Deep Packet Inspection, aimed at application classification and QoS at Layer 7 (not traditional router-style Layer 4 filters). Many traditional GGSN/PDSN gateway vendors have begun to message that DPI is a part of their LTE solutions, and the expectations of mobile operators are rising daily. RFPs are coming at a rapid pace from mobile operators, and every one includes a request for information on how DPI can be deployed in an LTE network. Read more [+]

        February 1st, 2010 by Kriss Andsten; Category: Technology
        Share

          Working in the field of traffic analysis, you get to see a rather modest number of good solutions to a given problem, a larger number of decent solutions and – sadly – quite a few less than stellar ideas as well.  My favorite pet peeve – and believe me, there’s a slew to choose from, is using FTP as an update mechanism for games, and doing it in a not very thought-out manner.

          Say that you have 4000 asset files in a given game. Most of them are pretty small – well under 8KB. You want to support users going from version A, B or C to version D, utilizing the least amount of bandwidth in the process. Logic dictates that it would make a lot of sense to get a checksum of all your local files, send the checksums to the server and have the server return a list of files you need to update, right? A minimum amount of bandwidth is utilized and the user can update from pretty much any version. Read more [+]