An Incentive-Based Approach to Traffic Management for Peer-to-Peer Overlays

  • Konstantin Pussep
  • Sergey Kuleshov
  • Christian Gross
  • Sergios Soursos
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6236)


Peer-to-Peer overlays are responsible for a large amount of consumer traffic, including the costly inter-domain traffic. Managing this traffic requires to consider the interests of the involved parties (users, overlay providers, and network providers), since many traditional approaches benefit only single parties. In this work we propose a mechanism where an Internet provider offers additional free resources to selected users that act in a most network-friendly way and are able to bias the overlay traffic for higher localization. By the means of simulations, we show that a proper cooperation with overlay providers can result in a mutual benefit. For typical interconnection agreements, this also applies if only a single Internet provider adopts the proposed mechanism.


Early Adopter Content Provider Server Load Network Neutrality Upload Bandwidth 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Cisco Visual Networking Index: Forecast and Methodology, 2008–2013, White Paper (2009),
  2. 2.
    Nair, S., Novak, D.: A traffic shaping model for optimizing network operations. European Journal of Operational Research 180(3), 1358–1380 (2007)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Peha, J.: The Benefits and Risks of Mandating Network Neutrality, and the Quest for a Balanced Policy. International Journal of Communication (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Piatek, M., Madhyastha, H., John, J., Krishnamurthy, A., Anderson, T.: Pitfalls for ISP-friendly P2P design. In: Hotnets (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Oechsner, S., Lehrieder, F., Hoßfeld, T., Metzger, F., Pussep, K., Staehle, D.: Pushing the Performance of Biased Neighbor Selection through Biased Unchoking. In: 9th International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Karagiannis, T., Papagiannaki, K., Faloutsos, M.: BLINC: Multilevel Traffic Classification in the Dark. In: SIGCOMM (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aggarwal, V., Feldmann, A., Scheideler, C.: Can ISPS and P2P Users Cooperate for Improved Performance? SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 37, 29–40 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Comcast Throttles BitTorrent Traffic, Seeding Impossible (2007),
  9. 9.
    Saleh, O., Hefeeda, M.: Modeling and Caching of Peer-to-Peer Traffic. In: IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bindal, R., Cao, P., Chan, W., Medved, J., Suwala, G., Bates, T., Zhang, A.: Improving Traffic Locality in BitTorrent via Biased Neighbor Selection. In: 30th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS 2006) (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang, J., Huang, C., Li, J.: On ISP-friendly Rate Allocation for Peer-sssisted VoD. In: International Conference on Multimedia. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Xie, H., Krishnamurthy, A., Silberschatz, A., Yang, Y.R.: P4P: Explicit Communications for Cooperative Control Between P2P and Network Providers. In: SIGCOMM (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Choffnes, D.R., Bustamante, F.E.: Taming the Torrent. In: SIGCOMM (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Konstantin Pussep
    • 1
  • Sergey Kuleshov
    • 2
  • Christian Gross
    • 1
  • Sergios Soursos
    • 3
  1. 1.Multimedia Communications LabTU DarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.PrimeTel R&DCyprus
  3. 3.Intracom Telecom R&DGreece

Personalised recommendations