Cringely Doesn’t Understand P2P

Mark Stephens, a.k.a. Robert X. Cringely, the guy who seems to get everything, just doesn’t seem to understand peer-to-peer. His recent post “The Skype is Falling” misses the mark several times. As Yochai Benkler has noted so clearly, p2p is about computers collaborating to share resources, much as Wikipedia is about humans collaborating to share knowledge. On Wikipedia, different people have different levels of knowledge on different topics. That’s what makes it work so well! Specialists in different areas on Wikipedia don’t have to worry about the things they don’t know about — they just contribute what they can. Together, they combine the best of human knowledge for everyone’s maximum benefit.

Peer-to-peer is at its most powerful when it does precisely the same thing — when each peer contributes as much as it’s capable of contributing. Just like humans, computers come in many shapes and sizes. Some have 200 GB hard drives and a dial-up modem. Others are cell phones with no hard drive and little memory, but with bandwidth to spare. Well-architected p2p networks take this into account, harvesting whatever resources are available at any time for the maximum benefit of the network as a whole.

Computers without firewalls and not behind NATs are one of the most precious resources on p2p networks because they supply services others can’t. Because anyone can connect to them, they serve as the glue holding any p2p network together. Without these nodes, most p2p networks simply would not function. Perhaps most importantly, they facilitate connections between NATted/firewalled nodes, allowing any node on a network to theoretically connect to any other.

This is where Cringely just doesn’t get it. He goes into detail describing how Skype uses “servers” to facilitate NAT traversal between peers. He points to the use of servers as somehow making Skype not p2p. The fact is, Skype uses distributed non-firewalled peers as “servers” to allow other peers to connect. This is ahh, well, precisely like every other p2p network on the planet. This architecture could not be more peer-to-peer. In fact, this is p2p at its best – the network is harvesting all available peer resources dynamically.

Cringely claims that “a lot of Skype connections aren’t p2p at all” because of this server interaction and that these servers need to have a “surplus of bandwidth to handle the conversation relay.” This is where his thesis really starts to unravel. He apparently does not understand that the servers are simply used as a signaling protocol to relay contact information between two peers. The call itself typically happens directly between the two computers using UDP NAT hole punching, a practice that VoIP really brought into mainstream use but that is also used in various games and in most p2p networks. There are certainly cases where the hole punching fails, such as with trying to connect 2 peers both behind symmetric NATs, but the call is typically direct. If it weren’t, call quality would often be horrible.

This is a key difference because the vast majority of the bandwidth requirements for calls are for the call itself. The headers exchanged for establishing the call are negligible. I would hazard a guess that 99% of the packets transferred in VoIP calls around the globe are voice packets, not headers. These packets never touch the server unless UDP hole punching fails. It’s an open question as to what Skype does when UDP hole punching fails, but I’d actually be surprised if they were even using “supernodes” in this case, likely instead routing their calls through their own servers. I just don’t think supernodes would be able to provide enough bandwidth for high enough call quality.

Far from the sort of faux p2p Cringely describes, Skype’s use of non-firewalled nodes to negotiate voice sessions between two or more peers is p2p at its finest. Now, don’t get me wrong, I have plenty of problems with Skype’s use of a proprietary protocol instead of SIP, and I’d prefer them to be open source, but this part of Cringely’s analysis just doesn’t make any sense.

Advertisements

6 Responses to Cringely Doesn’t Understand P2P

  1. Janko says:

    I think this whole server-talk was just his way of dumbing down the whole supernode idea – but of course his assertion that supernodes handle the majority of call traffic is still plain wrong. I wrote about this a few weeks ago already:

    http://www.p2p-blog.com/item-96.html

    Anyway, welcome to the blogosphere, Adam!

  2. adamfisk says:

    Greetings Janko, and thanks for the kind welcome. Crazy you wrote such a similar post. I’ve been meaning to write about it for awhile, but I hadn’t started up this blog yet when his post came out.

    Thanks as well for writing about Last Bamboo and LittleShoot. There will be many more details emerging soon, and I’ll be sure to keep you updated on any news. I’ve also struck up a lively e-mail debate with Bob on this topic, which has been fruitful.

    All the Best.

    -Adam

  3. TV-Free says:

    The founders of Kazaa have succesfully implemented P2P to Skype and are busy with also sharing data streams (like video and audio). There already have been a lot of initiatives in this area, see http://www.tv-free.org/ for this.

    Apart from this, SkyRider reminds me of: http://freenet.sourceforge.net/

  4. cyberboi666 says:

    Adam is sexy and he’s right – in that order. when he speaks of modems and interfaces I feel free in a way I never have before. and that makes me feel good, not just good, but like magical and stuff. anyway keep it up adam! word.

  5. wikipedia says:

    Personally, I have no idea why people would not understand how to do this.

  6. Pete says:

    Stephens is just getting old.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: