[Presumed] Peer-to-Peer Network Activityand Related Management

at Michigan State University

David A. GiftVice Provost, Libraries, Computing and Technology

Internet2 Fall Member MeetingOctober 2003Indianapolis, IN

Physical network connectivity on the campus:

1 Gbps campus backbone

1 Gbps connection to Internet

10 and 100 Mbps individual connections

Context (2002)…

• ~15,000 on-campus-resident students; ~45,000 total enrollment

• No rules about student servers

• MSU cooperates with copyright complaints;

Initial response is investigation (false-positives & intrusions)

• MSU does not “snoop” into network activity…

So, presumption of P2P activity as suggested by indirect indicators

Context…

• Peak Internet bandwidth demand doubled from Spring 2002 to Fall 2002

• Doubling (again) of peak bandwidth demand on 23 Sep 2002 (release date of Kazaa v2)

• Emergent complaints from residence hall occupants about network performance

Experience in 2002…

Experience…

RIAA and other copyright complaints:

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Jan-02

Feb-02

Mar-02

Apr-02

May-02

Jun-02

Jul-02

Aug-02

Sep-02

Oct-02

Throttle applied:

• Residence hall living units only

• Outbound only

• Packet lengths >400 bytes

• 400 Mbps total peak bandwidth

Later reduced to 350 Mbps

First-ever network management…

Campus Connection to Internet(Oct ’01 – Oct ‘02)

(expanded view)

Routerchangeover

Nothrottling

Throttle applied:Residence halls onlyOutbound (from MSU) only400 Mbps limit… 350 Mbps… … for packets >400 bytes only

Blue = Outbound

Green = Inbound

Inform students -- RHA meetings; State News coverage

• Network performance

• Cost, and options to put Internet costs into room fees

University added across-the-board component to room fees

Students: Charge us; don’t take away our bandwidth

Other actions…

Cost sharing options

Approach Characteristics

Build average cost into Housing rates

Place in context of overall price (like other utilities)

No differential cost for differential use (no metering of individual use; individual use may be program-driven)

Easy and inexpensive to administer No explicit economic incentive to control use

Separate fee(average cost-- same to all)

More visible as cost, but no real economic incentive to control use

Looks like “nickel-and-dimeing” More expensive to administer

Individual fee(whether for total useor for “excess” use)

Differential cost for differential use Very visible as cost; most direct incentive to

control use (but will it really affect use?) Requires individual metering and invoicing Complex and expensive to administer

• Peak bandwidth demand reduced ~30% (all due to outbound traffic)

• General complaints about network performance largely went away (but single users could still “hog” bandwidth)

• Specific complaints about upload speeds remained

• Enterprising students set their max. packet length to 399 bytes

Results…

By January 2003, peak bandwidth demand again moving toward 1 Gbps

Needed to do more…

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

RIAA and other copyright complaints:

Needed to do more…

New approach to throttling applied just prior to student move-in, Fall 2003:

Individual connections in residence hall living units each limited to:

• 10 Mbps inbound

• 128 Kbps outbound

Campus connection to Internet

Blue = OutboundGreen = Inbound

One residence hall connection to campus backbone

Blue = InboundGreen = Outbound

Results…

• Few, if any, complaints about network performance

• Peak bandwidth demand reduced ~50% compared to Spring 2003

• Outbound : Inbound Internet traffic more nearly 1:1

Results…

Results…

• Negatives: this approach limits student server and other upload operations (prefer a “network inductor”)

RIAA and other copyright complaints

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700