Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 45–63 | Cite as

On peer-to-peer (P2P) content delivery



In both academia and industry, peer-to-peer (P2P) applications have attracted great attentions. P2P applications such as Napster, Gnutella, FastTrack, BitTorrent, Skype and PPLive, have witnessed tremendous success among the end users. Unlike a client-server based system, peers bring with them serving capacity. Therefore, as the demand of a P2P system grows, the capacity of the network grows, too. This enables a P2P application to be cheap to build and superb in scalability. In this paper, we survey the state of the art of the research and the development of P2P content delivery application. Using examples of the deployed P2P applications and research prototypes, we survey the best practices in P2P overlay building and P2P scheduling. We hope that the information may help the readers to build a reliable, robust P2P content delivery application.


Peer-to-peer (P2P) P2P file sharing P2P streaming P2P broadcast Survey Overlay Scheduling Efficiency Reliability Robustness Quality of service (QoS) 


  1. 1.
    A&M Records, Inc vs. Napster Inc, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Mar. 2001Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    “Testimony of Mr. Shawn Fanning”, United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, hearings on the Utah’s digital economy and the future: peer-to-peer and other emerging technologies. Oct. 9, 2000Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Report: Napster users lose that sharing feeling,” in CNN news, URL:
  4. 4.
    Ferguson D (2006) Trends and statistics in peer-to-peer. Workshop on technical and legal aspects of peer-to-peer television. Amsterdam, Netherlands, Mar. 17Google Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Schollmeier R (2001) A definition of peer-to-peer networking for the classification of peer-to-peer architectures and applications. Proc. of 1st Intern. Conf. on Peer-to-Peer Computing, Linkoping, Sweden, pp. 101–102, AugGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sundsted T. The practice of peer-to-peer computing: Introduction and history.” URL:
  8. 8.
    Steve Saporta, “Multiple bit rate streams”, Jun. 1, 2002, URL:
  9. 9.
    Ripeanu M (2002) Peer-to-peer architecture case study: Gnutella network. Internet2 workshop: collaborative computing in higher education: peer-to-peer and beyond. Tempe, Arizona, January 30–31Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ritter J. Why Gnutella can’t scale. No, really. URL:
  11. 11.
    Llie D (2006) Gnutella network traffic measurements and Characteristics. Licentiate Dissertation Series No. 2006:05, ISBN: 91-7295-084-6, AprilGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liang J, Kumar R, Xi Y, Ross KW (2005) Pollution in P2P file sharing systems. Proc. of INFOCOM 2005. 24th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies, 13–17 March, Miami, FLGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hoßfeld T, Leibnitz K, Pries R, Tutschku K, Tran-Gia P, Pawlikowski K (2004) Information diffusion in eDonkey file sharing networks. University of Würzburg, Research Report No. 341, SeptGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Comparison of BitTorrent software. From Wikipedia, URL:
  15. 15.
    RawFlow Ltd., URL:
  16. 16.
    Abacast Online, URL:
  17. 17., URL:
  18. 18.
    PPStream, URL:
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    Roxbeam media network, URL:
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Hei X, Liang C, Liang J, Liu Y, Ross KW (2006) Insights into PPLive: a measurement study of a large-scale P2P IPTV system. In: Workshop on Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) services over World Wide Web in conjunction with WWW2006, Edinburgh, Scotland, MayGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liang J, Naoumov N, Ross KW (2006) The index poisoning attack in P2P file-sharing systems. Proc. of INFOCOM 2006. 25th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies, Barcelona, Spain, AprGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Daswani N, Garcia-Molina H (2002) Query-flood DoS attacks in Gnutella. 9th ACM Computer and Communications Security Conference (CCS), Washington, Dc, NovGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Naoumov N, Ross KW (2006) Exploiting P2P systems for DDoS attacks. International workshop on peer-to-peer information management (keynote address). Hong Kong, MayGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liang J, Kumar R, Ross KW (2005) The Kazaa overlay: a measurement study. Computer networks: special issue on overlaysGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Guha S, Daswani N, Jain R (2006) An experimental study of the Skype peer-to-peer VoIP system. In: Proceedings of the IPTPS’06. Santa Barbara, CA, FebGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    BitComet tracker overview, URL:
  29. 29.
    Padmanabhan VN, Wang HJ, Chou PA, Sripanidkulchai K (2002) Distributing streaming media content using cooperative networking. ACM NOSSDAV, Miami Beach, FL, USA, MayGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Banerjee S, Bhattacharjee B, Kommareddy C (2002) Scalable application layer multicast. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM 2002. Pittsburgh, PA, AugustGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tran D, Hua K, Do T (2003) Zigzag: an efficient peer-to-peer scheme for media streaming. Proc. of INFOCOM 2003, the 22nd Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies, San Francisco, CA, AprGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chu Y, Rao SG, Seshan S, Zhang H (2002) A case for end system multicast. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communication (JSAC), Special Issue on Networking Support for Multicast 20(8)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ratnasamy S, Francis P, Handley M, Karp R, Shenker S (2001) A scalable content-addressable network. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM 2001. San Diego, CA, AugGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stoica I, Morris R, Karger D, Frans Kaashoek M, Balakrishnan H (2001) Chord: a scalable peer-to-peer lookup service for internet applications. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM 2001. San Diego, CA, pp 149–160, AugustGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rowstron A, Druschel P (2001) Pastry: scalable, distributed object location and routing for large-scale peer-to-peer systems. IFIP/ACM International Conference on Distributed Systems Platforms (Middleware). Heidelberg, Germany, pp 329–350, NovemberGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhao BY, Huang L, Stribling J, Rhea SC, Joseph AD, Kubiatowcz JD (2004) Tapestry: a resilient global-scale overlay for service deployment. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 22(1), JanGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ylä-Jääski A, Kasinskaja N (eds) (2005) Peer-to-peer technologies, networks and systems, Helsinki University of Technology, T-110.551 Seminar on Internetworking in the springGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Maymounkov P, Mazières D (2002) Kademlia: a peer-to-peer information system based on the XOR metric. In: 1st international workshop on peer-to-peer systems (IPTPS 2002). Cambridge, MA, MarGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Castro M, Druschel P, Kermarrec A-M, Nandi A, Rowstron A, Singh A (2003) SplitStream: high-bandwidth multicast in a cooperative environment. SOSP’03, Lake Bolton, New York, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ng TSE, Zhang H (2002) Predicting Internet network distance with coordinates-based approaches. Proc. of INFOCOM 2002, the 21st Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies, New York, NY, JuneGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Costa M, Castro M, Rowstron A, Key P (2004) Practical internet coordinates for distance estimation. Proc. ICDCS 2004, the 24th International Conf. on Distributed Computing Systems, Tokyo, Japan, MarGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pias M, Crowcroft J, Wilbur S, Bhatti S, Harris T (2003) Lighthouses for scalable distributed location. In 2nd International Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems (IPTPS ’03). Berkeley, CA, FebGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tang L, Crovella M (2003) Virtual landmarks for the internet. Proc. of the ACM/SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference 2003. Miami, FL, pp 143–152, OctGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bindal R, Pei C, Chan W, Medved J, Suwala G, Bates T, Zhang A (2006) Improving traffic locality in BitTorrent via biased neighbor selection. Proc. ICDCS 2006, the 26th IEEE International Conference on the Distributed Computing Systems, Lisboa, Portugal, JulyGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Li J, Sollins K (2004) Exploiting autonomous system information in structured peer-to-peer networks. Proc. ICCCN2004, the 13th IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks, Chicago, IL, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
  47. 47.
    RouterViews, URL:
  48. 48.
    Dimitropoulos X, Krioukov D, Riley G, Claffy KC (2006) Revealing the autonomous system taxonomy: the machine learning approach. Proc. Passive and active measurements workshop (PAM). Adelaide, Austria, MarGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hu N, Li LE, Mao ZM, Steenkiste P, Wang J (2004) Locating Internet bottlenecks: algorithms, measurements, and implications. Proc. SIGCOMM 2004. Portland, OR, SeptGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Setton E, Noh J, Girod B (2006) Low latency video streaming over peer-to-peer networks. Proc. ICME 2006, IEEE Int. Conf. Multimedia and Expo. Toronto, Canada, JulyGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Internet protocol multicast, ch 43 of Internetworking Technology Handbook,
  52. 52.
    Chawathe Y (2000) Scattercast: an architecture for internet broadcast distribution as an infrastructure service. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley, AugustGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Jannotti J, Gifford DK, Johnson KL, Kaashoek MF, O’Toole Jr. JW (2000) Overcast: reliable multicasting with an overlay network. In Proc. of the Fourth Symposium on Operating System Design and Implementation (OSDI), OctoberGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Li J, Chou PA, Zhang C (2005) Mutualcast: an efficient mechanism for content distribution in a P2P network. Proc. Acm Sigcomm Asia Workshop. Beijing, China, Apr. 10–12Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Cherkasova L, Lee J (2003) FastReplica: efficient large file distribution within content delivery networks. In: Proc. of the 4-th USENIX Symposium on Internet Technologies and Systems. Seattle, Washington, March 26–28Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Huang C, Li J (2006) DISCOVR: distributed collaborative video recorder. 2006 International Conference on Multimedia & Expo (ICME’2006), Toronto, Canada, Jul. 9–12Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Gkantsidis C, Rodriguez P (2005) Network Coding for Large Scale Content Distribution. Proc. of INFOCOM 2005. 24th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies, Miami, FL, 13–17 MarchGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Zhang M, Luo JG, Zhao L, Yang SQ ( 2005) A peer-to-peer network for live media streaming using a push-pull approach. Proc. ACM Multimedia 2005, Singapore, pp 287–290, SeptGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    BitTorrent Specification, URL:
  60. 60.
    Li J, Cui Y (2007) PeerStreaming: design and implementation of an on-demand distributed streaming system. To be published in ACM Multimedia Systems JournalGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kostic D, Braud R, Killian C, Vandekieft E, Anderson JW, Snoeren AC, Vahdat A (2005) Maintaining high-bandwidth under dynamic network conditions. Proceedings of 2005 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX 2005). AprilGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Katabi D, Handley M, Rohrs C (2002) Internet congestion control for high bandwidth-delay product networks. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, AugustGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Microsoft Research ConfXP, URL:
  64. 64.
    Edmonds J (1973) Edge-disjoint branchings. In: Rustin R (ed) Combinatorial Algorithms. Academic Press, NY, pp 91–96Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Chou PA, WuY, Jain K (2003) Practical network coding. Proc. 51st Allerton Conf. Communication, Control and Computing, OctGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Byers JW, Luby M, Mitzenmacher M, Rege A (1998) A digital fountain approach to reliable distribution of bulk data. Proc. ACM SIGCOMM. Vancouver, BC, SeptGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Li J (2005) The efficient implementation of Reed-Solomon high rate erasure resilient codes. Proc. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (2005). Philadelphia, PA, Mar. 19–23Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Krohn M, Freedman MJ, Mazières D (2004) On-the-fly verification of rateless erasure codes for efficient content distribution Proc. IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, CA, MayGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Gkantsidis C, Rodriguez P (2006) Cooperative security for network coding file distribution. IEEE/INFOCOM’06. Barcelona, AprilGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Charles D, Jain K, Lauter K (2006) Signatures for network coding. Conf. on Information Sciences and Systems, MarGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Gummadi K, Gribble S, Ratnasamy S, Shenker S, Stoica I (2003) The impact of DHT routing geometry on resilience and proximity. Proc. Proc. ACM SIGCOMM’03. Karlsruhe, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Castro M, Costa M, Rowstron A. Performance and dependability of structured peer-to-peer overlays. Technical report MSR-TR2003-94Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Huang G (2007) PPLive – a practical P2P live system with huge amount of users. keynote speech at P2PTV workshop, Kyoto, JapanGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Li J (2007) Locality aware peer assisted delivery: the way to scale Internet video to the world. 16th Packet Video workshop (PV 2007). Lausanne, Switzerland, NovGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Karagiannis T, Rodriguez P, Papagiannaki K (2005) Should Internet service providers fear peer-assisted content distribution? In: Proc. Internet Measurement Conference 2005. Berkeley, CA, OctGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Huang C, Li J, Ross K (2007) Can internet video-on-demand be profitable. Proc. ACM Sigcomm’07. Kyoto, Japan, AugGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Pakkala D, Latvakoski J (2005) Towards a peer-to-peer extended content delivery network. 14th IST Mobile & Wireless Communications Summit, Dresden, JuneGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Xu D, Chai HK, Rosenberg C, Kulkami S (2003) Analysis of a hybrid architecture for cost-effective streaming media distribution. SPIE/ACM Conf. on Multimedia Computing and Networking (MMCN’03). San Jose, CA, JanGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    The VeriSign Intelligent CDN, VeriSign, 2007Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Microsoft Research, Communication and Collaboration Systems, One Microsoft WayRedmondUSA

Personalised recommendations