• Gnutella Download
• Peer To Peer Software Examples Free
• Peer To Peer Software Download
• Peer To Peer Software Examples Resume
• Peer To Peer File Sharing Examples

Peer-to-peer computing or networking is a distributed application architecture that partitions tasks or workloads between peers. Peers are equally privileged, equipotent participants in the application. They are said to form a peer-to-peer network of nodes. Peers make a portion of their resources, such as processing power, disk storage or network bandwidth, directly available to other network participants, without the need for central coordination by servers or stable hosts. Peers are both suppl. Techopedia explains Peer-to-Peer Architecture (P2P Architecture) As more demand is put on the system through each node, the capacity of the whole system increases. (This accounts for the enormous increase of system security and file verification mechanisms, making most P2P networks resistant to almost any type of attack.) By comparison. Peer Review Process Description. 1.Open the Meeting: Introduce the participants (if necessary) and state their roles, state the purpose of the inspection, and direct inspectors to focus their efforts toward finding defects, not solutions. Examples Peer-to-Peer Applications (Gnutella, Kazaa, BitTorrent, Skype) Second generation approach. Gnutella – Fully distributed approach – Constructs Gnutella overlay network – What is an overlay network? – How do we join the network? P2p-examples.ppt Author: Andrew T.

Peer-to-peer file sharing is the distribution and sharing of digital media using peer-to-peer (P2P) networking technology. P2P file sharing allows users to access media files such as books, music, movies, and games using a P2P software program that searches for other connected computers on a P2P network to locate the desired content.^[1] The nodes (peers) of such networks are end-user computers and distribution servers (not required).

Peer-to-peer file sharing technology has evolved through several design stages from the early networks like Napster, which popularized the technology, to the later models like the BitTorrent protocol. Microsoft uses it for Update distribution (Windows 10) and online playing games (e.g. the mmorpgSkyforge^[2]) use it as their content distribution network for downloading large amounts of data without incurring the dramatic costs for bandwidth inherent when providing just a single source.

Several factors contributed to the widespread adoption and facilitation of peer-to-peer file sharing. These included increasing Internet bandwidth, the widespread digitization of physical media, and the increasing capabilities of residential personal computers. Users are able to transfer one or more files from one computer to another across the Internet through various file transfer systems and other file-sharing networks.^[1]

• 1History
• 2Economic impact
• 4Communities in P2P file sharing networks

History[edit]

Peer-to-peer file sharing became popular with the introduction of Napster, a file sharing application and a set of central servers that linked people who had files with those who requested files. The central index server indexed the users and their shared content. When someone searched for a file, the server searched all available copies of that file and presented them to the user. The files would be transferred directly between the two private computers. A limitation was that only music files could be shared.^[3] Because this process occurred on a central server, however, Napster was held liable for copyright infringement and shut down in July 2001. It later reopened as a pay service.^[4]

After Napster was shut down, the most popular peer-to-peer services were Gnutella and Kazaa. These services also allowed users to download files other than music, such as movies and games.^[3]

Technology evolution[edit]

Napster and eDonkey2000, which both used a central server-based model, may be classified as the first generation of P2P systems.^[5] These systems relied on the operation of the respective central servers, and thus were susceptible to centralized shutdown. The second generation of P2P file sharing encompasses networks like Kazaa, Gnutella and Gnutella2, which are able to operate without any central servers, eliminated the central vulnerability by connecting users remotely to each other.^[6]

The third generation of filesharing networks are the so-called darknets, including networks like Freenet, which provide user anonymity in addition to the independence from central servers.^[7]

The BitTorrent protocol represents a special case. In principle, it is a filesharing protocol of the first generation, relying on central servers called trackers to coordinate users. However, it does not form a network in the traditional sense. Instead new, separate networks of coordinating users are created for every set of files, called a torrent. Newer extensions of the protocol removes the need of centralized trackers, allow the usage of a decentralized server-independent network for source identification purposes, referred to as the Mainline DHT. This allows BitTorrent to encompass certain aspects of a filesharing network of the second generation as well. Users create an index file containing the metadata of the files they want to share, and upload the index files to websites where they are shared with others.

Peer-to-peer file sharing is also efficient in terms of cost.^[8][9] The system administration overhead is smaller because the user is the provider and usually the provider is the administrator as well. Hence each network can be monitored by the users themselves. At the same time, large servers sometimes require more storage and this increases the cost since the storage has to be rented or bought exclusively for a server. However, usually peer-to-peer file sharing does not require a dedicated server.^[10]

Economic impact[edit]

There is still ongoing discussion about the economic impact of P2P file sharing. Norbert Michel, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said that because of 'econometric and data issues, studies thus far have produced disparate estimates of file sharing's impact on album sales.'^[11]

In the book The Wealth of Networks, Yochai Benkler states that peer-to-peer file sharing is economically efficient and that the users pay the full transaction cost and marginal cost of such sharing even if it 'throws a monkey wrench into the particular way in which our society has chosen to pay musicians and re-cording executives. This trades off efficiency for longer-term incentive effects for the recording industry. However, it is efficient within the normal meaning of the term in economics in a way that it would not have been had Jack and Jane used subsidized computers or network connections'.^[12]

As peer-to-peer file sharing can be used to exchange files for which the distribution right was granted (e.g. public domain, Creative Commons, Copyleft licenses, online games, updates, ...).

Especially startups can save massive amounts of money compared with other means of content delivery networks.

A calculation example:

with peer to peer file sharing: ${\displaystyle \text{total cost}=\frac{\text{filesize}}{\text{customers}}\times \text{cost-per-byte}}$

with casual content delivery networks: ${\displaystyle \text{total cost}=\text{filesize}\times \text{customers}\times \text{cost-per-byte}}$

Music industry[edit]

The economic effect of copyright infringement through peer-to-peer file sharing on music revenue has been controversial and difficult to determine. Unofficial studies found that file sharing had a negative impact on record sales.^{[13][14][15][16][17]} It has proven difficult to untangle the cause and effect relationships among a number of different trends, including an increase in legal online purchases of music; illegal file-sharing; drops in the prices of CDs; and the extinction of many independent music stores with a concomitant shift to sales by big-box retailers.^[18]

Also many independent artists choose a peer-to-peer file sharing method named BitTorrent Bundle for distribution.

Film industry[edit]

The MPAA reported that American studios lost $2.373 billion to Internet piracy in 2005, representing approximately one third of the total cost of film piracy in the United States.^[19] The MPAA's estimate was doubted by commentators since it was based on the assumption that one download was equivalent to one lost sale, and downloaders might not purchase the movie if illegal downloading was not an option.^[20][21][22] Due to the private nature of the study, the figures could not be publicly checked for methodology or validity,^[23][24][25] and on January 22, 2008, as the MPAA was lobbying for a bill which would compel universities to crack down on piracy, it was admitted by MPAA that its figures on piracy in colleges had been inflated by up to 300%.^[26][27]

A 2010 study, commissioned by the International Chamber of Commerce and conducted by independent Paris-based economics firm TERA, estimated that unlawful downloading of music, film and software cost Europe's creative industries several billion dollars in revenue each year.^[28] Furthermore, the TERA study entitled 'Building a Digital Economy: The Importance of Saving Jobs in the EU's Creative Industries' predicted losses due to piracy reaching as much as 1.2 million jobs and €240 billion in retail revenue by 2015 if the trend continued. Researchers applied a substitution rate of ten percent to the volume of copyright infringements per year. This rate corresponded to the number of units potentially traded if unlawful file sharing were eliminated and did not occur.^[29] Piracy rates of one-quarter or more^[vague] for popular software and operating systems have been common, even in countries and regions with strong intellectual property enforcement, such as the United States or the EU.^[30]

Public perception and usage[edit]

In 2004, an estimated 70 million people participated in online file sharing.^[31] According to a CBS News poll, nearly 70 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds thought file sharing was acceptable in some circumstances and 58 percent of all Americans who followed the file sharing issue considered it acceptable in at least some circumstances.^[32]

In January 2006, 32 million Americans over the age of 12 had downloaded at least one feature-length movie from the Internet, 80 percent of whom had done so exclusively over P2P. Of the population sampled, 60 percent felt that downloading copyrighted movies off the Internet did not constitute a very serious offense, however 78 percent believed taking a DVD from a store without paying for it constituted a very serious offense.^[33]

In July 2008, 20 percent of Europeans used file sharing networks to obtain music, while 10 percent used paid-for digital music services such as iTunes.^[34]

In February 2009, a Tiscali UK survey found that 75 percent of the English public polled were aware of what was legal and illegal in relation to file sharing, but there was a divide as to where they felt the legal burden should be placed: 49 percent of people believed P2P companies should be held responsible for illegal file sharing on their networks, 18 percent viewed individual file sharers as the culprits, while 18 percent either didn't know or chose not to answer.^[35]

According to an earlier poll, 75 percent of young voters in Sweden (18-20) supported file sharing when presented with the statement: 'I think it is OK to download files from the Net, even if it is illegal.' Of the respondents, 38 percent said they 'adamantly agreed' while 39 percent said they 'partly agreed'.^[36] An academic study among American and European college students found that users of file-sharing technologies were relatively anti-copyright and that copyright enforcement created backlash, hardening pro-file sharing beliefs among users of these technologies.^[37]

Communities in P2P file sharing networks[edit]

Communities have a prominent role in many peer to peer networks and applications, such as BitTorrent, Gnutella and DC++. There are different elements that contribute to the formation, development and the stability of these communities, which include interests, user attributes, cost reduction, user motivation and the dimension of the community.

Interest attributes[edit]

Peer communities are formed on the basis of common interests. For Khambatti, Ryu and Dasgupta common interests can be labelled as attributes 'which are used to determine the peer communities in which a particular peer can participate'.^[38] There are two ways in which these attributes can be classified: explicit and implicit attributes.

Implicit values means that peers provide information about themselves to a specific community, for example they may express their interest in a subject or their taste in music. With explicit values, users do not directly express information about themselves, albeit, it is still possible to find information about that specific user by uncovering his or her past queries and research carried out in a P2P network. Khambatti, Ryu and Dasgupta divide these interests further into three classes: personal, claimed and group attributes.^[38]

A full set of attributes (common interests) of a specific peer is defined as personal attributes, and is a collection of information a peer has about him or herself. Peers may decide not to disclose information about themselves to maintain their privacy and online security. It is for this reason that the authors specify that 'a subset of...attributes is explicitly claimed public by a peer', and they define such attributes as 'claimed attributes'.^[38] The third category of interests is group attributes, defined as 'location or affiliation oriented' and are needed to form a...basis for communities', an example being the 'domain name of an internet connection' which acts as an online location and group identifier for certain users.

Cost reduction[edit]

Cost reduction influences the sharing component of P2P communities. Users who share do so to attempt 'to reduce...costs' as made clear by Cunningham, Alexander and Adilov.^[39] In their work Peer-to-peer file sharing communities, they explain that 'the act of sharing is costly since any download from a sharer implies that the sharer is sacrificing bandwidth'.^[39] As sharing represents the basis of P2P communities, such as Napster, and without it 'the network collapses', users share despite its costs in order to attempt to lower their own costs, particularly those associated with searching, and with the congestion of internet servers.^[39]

User motivation and size of community[edit]

User motivation and the size of the P2P community contribute to its sustainability and activity. In her work Motivating Participation in Peer to Peer Communities, Vassileva studies these two aspects through an experiment carried out in the University of Saskatchewan (Canada), where a P2P application (COMUTELLA) was created and distributed among students. In her view, motivation is 'a crucial factor' in encouraging users to participate in an online P2P community, particularly because the 'lack of a critical mass of active users' in the form of a community will not allow for a P2P sharing to function properly.^[40]

Usefulness is a valued aspect by users when joining a P2P community. The specific P2P system must be perceived as 'useful' by the user and must be able to fulfil his or her needs and pursue his or her interests. Consequently, the 'size of the community of users defines the level of usefulness' and 'the value of the system determines the number of users'.^[40] This two way process is defined by Vassileva as a feedback loop, and has allowed for the birth of file-sharing systems like Napster and KaZaA. However, in her research Vassileva has also found that 'incentives are needed for the users in the beginning', particularly for motivating and getting users into the habit of staying online.^[40] This can be done, for example, by providing the system with a wide amount of resources or by having an experienced user provide assistance to a less experienced one.

User classification[edit]

Users participating in P2P systems can be classified in different ways. According to Vassileva, users can be classified depending on their participation in the P2P system. There are five types of users to be found: users who create services, users who allow services, users who facilitate search, users who allow communication, users who are uncooperative and free ride.^[40]

In the first instance, the user creates new resources or services and offers them to the community. In the second, the user provides the community with disk space 'to store files for downloads' or with 'computing resources' to facilitate a service provided by another users.^[40] In the third, the user provides a list of relationships to help other users find specific files or services. In the fourth, the user participates actively in the 'protocol of the network', contributing to keeping the network together. In the last situation, the user does not contribute to the network, downloads what he or she needs but goes immediately offline once the service is not needed anymore, thus free-riding on the network and community resources.^[40]

Tracking[edit]

Corporations continue to combat the use of the internet as a tool to illegally copy and share various files, especially that of copyrighted music. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has been active in leading campaigns against infringers. Lawsuits have been launched against individuals as well as programs such as Napster in order to 'protect' copyright owners.^[41] One of the most recent efforts of the RIAA has been to implant decoy users to monitor the use of copyrighted material from a firsthand perspective.^[42]

Risks[edit]

In early June 2002, Researcher Nathaniel Good at HP Labs demonstrated that user interface design issues could contribute to users inadvertently sharing personal and confidential information over P2P networks.^[43][44][45]

In 2003, Congressional hearings before the House Committee of Government Reform (Overexposed: The Threats to Privacy & Security on File Sharing Networks)^[46] and the Senate Judiciary Committee (The Dark Side of a Bright Idea: Could Personal and National Security Risks Compromise the Potential of P2P File-Sharing Networks?) ^[47] were convened to address and discuss the issue of inadvertent sharing on peer-to-peer networks and its consequences to consumer and national security.

Researchers have examined potential security risks including the release of personal information, bundled spyware, and viruses downloaded from the network.^[48][49] Some proprietary file sharing clients have been known to bundle malware, though open source programs typically have not. Some open source file sharing packages have even provided integrated anti-virus scanning.^[50]

Since approximately 2004 the threat of identity theft had become more prevalent, and in July 2008 there was another inadvertent revealing of vast amounts of personal information through P2P sites. The 'names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers of about 2,000 of (an investment) firm's clients' were exposed, 'including [those of] Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.'^[51] A drastic increase in inadvertent P2P file sharing of personal and sensitive information became evident in 2009 at the beginning of President Obama's administration when the blueprints to the helicopter Marine One were made available to the public through a breach in security via a P2P file sharing site. Access to this information has the potential of being detrimental to US security.^[51] Furthermore, shortly before this security breach, the Today show had reported that more than 150,000 tax returns, 25,800 student loan applications and 626,000 credit reports had been inadvertently made available through file sharing.^[51]

The United States government then attempted to make users more aware of the potential risks involved with P2P file sharing programs^[52] through legislation such as H.R. 1319, the Informed P2P User Act, in 2009.^[53] According to this act, it would be mandatory for individuals to be aware of the risks associated with peer-to-peer file sharing before purchasing software with informed consent of the user required prior to use of such programs. In addition, the act would allow users to block and remove P2P file sharing software from their computers at any time,^[54] with the Federal Trade Commission enforcing regulations. US-CERT also warns of the potential risks.^[55]

Nevertheless, in 2010, researchers discovered thousands of documents containing sensitive patient information on popular peer-to-peer (P2P) networks, including insurance details, personally identifying information, physician names and diagnosis codes on more than 28,000 individuals. Many of the documents contained sensitive patient communications, treatment data, medical diagnoses and psychiatric evaluations.^[56]

Copyright issues[edit]

The act of file sharing is not illegal per se and peer-to-peer networks are also used for legitimate purposes. The legal issues in file sharing involve violating the laws of copyrighted material. Most discussions about the legality of file sharing are implied to be about solely copyright material. Many countries have fair use exceptions that permit limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Such documents include commentary, news reporting, research and scholarship. Copyright laws are territorial- they do not extend beyond the territory of a specific state unless that state is a party to an international agreement. Most countries today are parties to at least one such agreement.

In the area of privacy, recent court rulings seem to indicate that there can be no expectation of privacy in data exposed over peer-to-peer file-sharing networks. In a 39-page ruling released November 8, 2013, US District Court Judge Christina Reiss denied the motion to suppress evidence gathered by authorities without a search warrant through an automated peer-to-peer search tool.^[57]

See also[edit]

• File sharing timeline (peer to peer and not)
• Friend-to-friend or F2F

References[edit]

1. ^ ^abCarmack, Carman (2005-03-26). 'How Bit Torrent Works'. computer.howstuffworks.com/.
2. ^'Heads up if you're installing Skyforge - The downloader is a P2P client and by default starts with Windows. • /r/MMORPG'. reddit. Retrieved 2016-03-03.
3. ^ ^abTyson, Jeff (2000-10-30). 'How the Old Napster Worked'. howstuffworks.com.
4. ^'Copyright and Peer-To-Peer Music File Sharing: The Napster Case and the Argument Against Legislative Reform'. murdoch.edu.au. March 2004.
5. ^Gong, Yiming. 'Identifying P2P users using traffic analysis'. Symantec. Retrieved 8 December 2014.
6. ^Watson, Stephanie (2005-02-10). 'How Kazaa Works'. computer.howstuffworks.com.
7. ^Peer-to-peer systems and applications. Steinmetz, Ralf., Wehrle, Klaus, 1972-. Berlin. ISBN9783540320470. OCLC262681429.CS1 maint: others (link)
8. ^Babaoglu, Ozalp (2012). 'Introduction to Peer-to-Peer Systems'(PDF). Complex Systems. Universitá di Bologna. Retrieved 6 February 2013.
9. ^http://ijcsits.org/papers/vol3no22013/1vol3no2.pdf
10. ^Winkelman, Dr. Roy. 'Software'. Florida Center for Instructional Technology College of Education, University of South Florida. Retrieved 6 February 2013.
11. ^J. Michel, Norbert. Internet File Sharing and The Evidence So far, heritage.org, August 23, 2004.
12. ^Yochai Benkler (2006). Wealth of Networks. Yale University Press. ISBN978-0300127232.
13. ^Alejandro Zentner, 'File Sharing and International Sales of Copyrighted Music: An Empirical Analysis with a Panel of Countries', The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, Vol. 5, Issue 1 (2005)
14. ^Liebowitz, Stan J. (2006). 'File Sharing: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?'. The Journal of Law & Economics. 49 (1): 1–28. CiteSeerX10.1.1.320.601. doi:10.1086/503518. ISSN1537-5285. JSTOR10.1086/503518.
15. ^Rob, Rafael; Waldfogel, Joel (2006). 'Piracy on the High C's: Music Downloading, Sales Displacement, and Social Welfare in a Sample of College Students'. The Journal of Law & Economics. 49 (1): 29–62. CiteSeerX10.1.1.505.4843. doi:10.1086/430809. ISSN1537-5285. JSTOR10.1086/430809.
16. ^Zentner, Alejandro (2006). 'Measuring the Effect of File Sharing on Music Purchases'. The Journal of Law & Economics. 49 (1): 63–90. CiteSeerX10.1.1.571.6264. doi:10.1086/501082. ISSN1537-5285. JSTOR10.1086/501082.
17. ^Stan J. Liebowitz in a series of papers (2005, 2006)
18. ^Smith, Ethan. March 21, 2007. 'Sales of Music, Long in Decline, Plunge Sharply: Rise in Downloading Fails to Boost Industry; A Retailing Shakeout', Wallstreet Journal Website
19. ^'SWEDISH AUTHORITIES SINK PIRATE BAY: Huge Worldwide Supplier of Illegal Movies Told No Safe Harbors for Facilitators of Piracy!'(PDF). MPAA. 2006-05-31.
20. ^Gross, Daniel (2004-11-21). 'Does a Free Download Equal a Lost Sale?'. The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-07-16.
21. ^Oberholzer, Felix; Strumpf, Koleman (March 2004). 'The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis'(PDF). UNC Chapel Hill.Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
22. ^Schwartz, John (2004-04-05). 'A Heretical View of File Sharing'. The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-07-16.
23. ^Fisher, Ken (2006-05-05). 'The problem with MPAA's shocking piracy numbers'. Ars Technica. Retrieved 2007-07-15.
24. ^'Movie Piracy Cost 6.1 Billion'. Torrent Freak. 2006-05-03. Retrieved 2007-07-16.
25. ^'Hollywood study examines costs of film piracy'. ZDNet (Reuters). 2006-05-03. Archived from the original on 2007-04-17. Retrieved 2007-07-16.
26. ^Anderson, Nate (2008-01-22). 'MPAA admits college piracy numbers grossly inflated'. Ars Technica.
27. ^Anderson, Nate (2008-01-15). '2008 shaping up to be 'Year of Filters' at colleges, ISPs'. Ars Technica.
28. ^Mundell, Ian. Piracy in Europe costs $13.7 billion, Variety. March 18, 2010.
29. ^Geoffron, Patrice. Building a Digital Economy, iccwbo.org, March 17, 2010.
30. ^Moisés Naím (2007). Illicit: How smugglers, traffickers and copycats are hijacking the global economy, p. 15. Arrow Books, London. ISBN1-4000-7884-9.
31. ^Delgado, Ray. Law professors examine ethical controversies of peer-to-peer file sharing. Stanford Report, March 17, 2004.
32. ^Poll: Young Say File Sharing OKCBS News, Bootie Cosgrove-Mather, 2003-09-18
33. ^Solutions Research Group - Movie File-Sharing Booming: StudyArchived 2012-02-17 at the Wayback Machine
34. ^17:41 GMT, Thursday, 3 July 2008 18:41 UK. Technology: 'Warning letters to 'file-sharers', BBC NEWS.
35. ^MarkJ - 24 February 2009 (1:46 PM). 'Tiscali UK Survey Reveals Illegal File Sharing Attitudes', ISPreview UK News.
36. ^TT/Adam Ewing. 8 Jun 06 09:54 CET. 'Young voters back file sharing', The Local.
37. ^Ben Depoorter et al. ' Copyright Backlash', Southern California Law Review, 2011.
38. ^ ^abcKhambatti, Mujtaba; Ryu, Kyung Dong; Partha, Dasgupta (7 September 2003). Structuring Peer-to-Peer Networks Using Interest-Based Communities. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2944. p. 48. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-24629-9_5. ISBN978-3-540-20968-3.
39. ^ ^abcCunningham, Brendan; Alexander, Peter; Adilov, Nodir (28 October 2003). 'Peer-to-peer file sharing communities'. Information Economics and Policy. Retrieved 16 December 2015.
40. ^ ^abcdefVassileva, Julita (January 2002). Motivating Participation in Peer to Peer Communities. Engineering Societies in the Agents World III. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2577. pp. 141–155. doi:10.1007/3-540-39173-8_11. ISBN978-3-540-14009-2.
41. ^'EBSCO Publishing Service Selection Page'. eds.a.ebscohost.com. Retrieved 2015-11-25.
42. ^Banerjee, Anirban; Faloutsos, Michalis; Bhuyan, Laxmi (2008-04-24). 'The P2P war: Someone is monitoring your activities'. Computer Networks. 52 (6): 1272–1280. CiteSeerX10.1.1.76.9451. doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2008.01.011.
43. ^Good, Nathaniel; Aaron Krekelberg (5 June 2002). 'Usability and privacy: a study of Kazaa P2P file- sharing'. HP Labs Tech Report. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
44. ^Good, Nathaniel; Aaron Krekelberg (2003). Usability and privacy: a study of Kazaa P2P file- sharing. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 137–144. doi:10.1145/642611.642636. ISBN978-1581136302.
45. ^Markoff, John (June 7, 2002). 'Security Hole Found in KaZaA File-Sharing Service'. New York Times. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
46. ^'Overexposed: The Threats to Privacy & Security on File Sharing Networks'(PDF).
47. ^'The Dark Side of a Bright Idea: Could Personal and National Security Risks Compromise the Potential of P2P File-Sharing Networks?'.
48. ^By M. Eric Johnson, Dan McGuire, Nicholas D. Willey The Evolution of the Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Industry and the Security Risks for Users
49. ^Håvard Vegge, Finn Michael Halvorsen and Rune Walsø Nergård (2009). 'Where Only Fools Dare to Tread: An Empirical Study on the Prevalence of Zero-day Malware'. 2009 Fourth International Conference on Internet Monitoring and Protection.Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
50. ^Open source file sharing software with integrated anti-virus scanning
51. ^ ^abcGreg Sandoval. April 21, 2009 10:41 AM PDT. 'Congress to probe P2P sites over 'inadvertent sharing', CNET News
52. ^'P2P File-Sharing Risks'. OnGuardOnLine.gov. 2011-09-24.
53. ^'Hearing on Barrow P2P Legislation Held on Tuesday'. Congressman John Barrow. May 2009.
54. ^'Text of H.R. 1319: Informed P2P User Act', GovTrack.us
55. ^'Risks of File-Sharing Technology'. US-CERT.
56. ^Jaikumar Vijayan. May 17, 2010 'P2P networks a treasure trove of leaked health care data, study finds', ComputerWorld
57. ^ComputerWorld.[1] ' Don't expect data on P2P networks to be private, judge rules'.

External links[edit]

Peer-to-peer (P2P) computing or networking is a distributed application architecture that partitions tasks or workloads between peers. Peers are equally privileged, equipotent participants in the application. They are said to form a peer-to-peer network of nodes.

Peers make a portion of their resources, such as processing power, disk storage or network bandwidth, directly available to other network participants, without the need for central coordination by servers or stable hosts.^[1] Peers are both suppliers and consumers of resources, in contrast to the traditional client-server model in which the consumption and supply of resources is divided. Emerging collaborative P2P systems are going beyond the era of peers doing similar things while sharing resources, and are looking for diverse peers that can bring in unique resources and capabilities to a virtual community thereby empowering it to engage in greater tasks beyond those that can be accomplished by individual peers, yet that are beneficial to all the peers.^[2]

While P2P systems had previously been used in many application domains,^[3] the architecture was popularized by the file sharing system Napster, originally released in 1999. The concept has inspired new structures and philosophies in many areas of human interaction. In such social contexts, peer-to-peer as a meme refers to the egalitariansocial networking that has emerged throughout society, enabled by Internet technologies in general.

• 2Architecture
  • 2.1Routing and resource discovery
  • 2.2Security and trust
• 3Applications
  • 3.2File-sharing networks
• 4Social implications
  • 4.1Incentivizing resource sharing and cooperation
• 5Political implications

Historical development[edit]

While P2P systems had previously been used in many application domains,^[3] the concept was popularized by file sharing systems such as the music-sharing application Napster (originally released in 1999). The peer-to-peer movement allowed millions of Internet users to connect 'directly, forming groups and collaborating to become user-created search engines, virtual supercomputers, and filesystems.' ^[4] The basic concept of peer-to-peer computing was envisioned in earlier software systems and networking discussions, reaching back to principles stated in the first Request for Comments, RFC 1.^[5]

Tim Berners-Lee's vision for the World Wide Web was close to a P2P network in that it assumed each user of the web would be an active editor and contributor, creating and linking content to form an interlinked 'web' of links. The early Internet was more open than present day, where two machines connected to the Internet could send packets to each other without firewalls and other security measures.^{[4][page needed]} This contrasts to the broadcasting-like structure of the web as it has developed over the years.^[6][7] As a precursor to the Internet, ARPANET was a successful client-server network where 'every participating node could request and serve content.' However, ARPANET was not self-organized, and it lacked the ability to 'provide any means for context or content-based routing beyond 'simple' address-based routing.'^[7]

Therefore, USENET, a distributed messaging system that is often described as an early peer-to-peer architecture, was established. It was developed in 1979 as a system that enforces a decentralized model of control. The basic model is a client-server model from the user or client perspective that offers a self-organizing approach to newsgroup servers. However, news servers communicate with one another as peers to propagate Usenet news articles over the entire group of network servers. The same consideration applies to SMTP email in the sense that the core email-relaying network of mail transfer agents has a peer-to-peer character, while the periphery of e-mail clients and their direct connections is strictly a client-server relationship.^{[citation needed]}

In May 1999, with millions more people on the Internet, Shawn Fanning introduced the music and file-sharing application called Napster.^[7] Napster was the beginning of peer-to-peer networks, as we know them today, where 'participating users establish a virtual network, entirely independent from the physical network, without having to obey any administrative authorities or restrictions.'^[7]

Architecture[edit]

A peer-to-peer network is designed around the notion of equal peer nodes simultaneously functioning as both 'clients' and 'servers' to the other nodes on the network. This model of network arrangement differs from the client–server model where communication is usually to and from a central server. A typical example of a file transfer that uses the client-server model is the File Transfer Protocol (FTP) service in which the client and server programs are distinct: the clients initiate the transfer, and the servers satisfy these requests.

Routing and resource discovery[edit]

Peer-to-peer networks generally implement some form of virtual overlay network on top of the physical network topology, where the nodes in the overlay form a subset of the nodes in the physical network. Data is still exchanged directly over the underlying TCP/IP network, but at the application layer peers are able to communicate with each other directly, via the logical overlay links (each of which corresponds to a path through the underlying physical network). Overlays are used for indexing and peer discovery, and make the P2P system independent from the physical network topology. Based on how the nodes are linked to each other within the overlay network, and how resources are indexed and located, we can classify networks as unstructured or structured (or as a hybrid between the two).^[8][9][10]

Unstructured networks[edit]

Unstructured peer-to-peer networks do not impose a particular structure on the overlay network by design, but rather are formed by nodes that randomly form connections to each other.^[11] (Gnutella, Gossip, and Kazaa are examples of unstructured P2P protocols).^[12]

Because there is no structure globally imposed upon them, unstructured networks are easy to build and allow for localized optimizations to different regions of the overlay.^[13] Also, because the role of all peers in the network is the same, unstructured networks are highly robust in the face of high rates of 'churn'—that is, when large numbers of peers are frequently joining and leaving the network.^[14][15]

However, the primary limitations of unstructured networks also arise from this lack of structure. In particular, when a peer wants to find a desired piece of data in the network, the search query must be flooded through the network to find as many peers as possible that share the data. Flooding causes a very high amount of signaling traffic in the network, uses more CPU/memory (by requiring every peer to process all search queries), and does not ensure that search queries will always be resolved. Furthermore, since there is no correlation between a peer and the content managed by it, there is no guarantee that flooding will find a peer that has the desired data. Popular content is likely to be available at several peers and any peer searching for it is likely to find the same thing. But if a peer is looking for rare data shared by only a few other peers, then it is highly unlikely that search will be successful.^[16]

Structured networks[edit]

In structured peer-to-peer networks the overlay is organized into a specific topology, and the protocol ensures that any node can efficiently^[17] search the network for a file/resource, even if the resource is extremely rare.

The most common type of structured P2P networks implement a distributed hash table (DHT),^[18][19] in which a variant of consistent hashing is used to assign ownership of each file to a particular peer.^[20][21] This enables peers to search for resources on the network using a hash table: that is, (key, value) pairs are stored in the DHT, and any participating node can efficiently retrieve the value associated with a given key.^[22][23]

However, in order to route traffic efficiently through the network, nodes in a structured overlay must maintain lists of neighbors that satisfy specific criteria. This makes them less robust in networks with a high rate of churn (i.e. with large numbers of nodes frequently joining and leaving the network).^[15][24]More recent evaluation of P2P resource discovery solutions under real workloads have pointed out several issues in DHT-based solutions such as high cost of advertising/discovering resources and static and dynamic load imbalance.^[25]

Notable distributed networks that use DHTs include Tixati, an alternative to BitTorrent's distributed tracker, the Kad network, the Storm botnet, YaCy, and the Coral Content Distribution Network. Some prominent research projects include the Chord project, Kademlia, PAST storage utility, P-Grid, a self-organized and emerging overlay network, and CoopNet content distribution system.^[26] DHT-based networks have also been widely utilized for accomplishing efficient resource discovery^[27][28] for grid computing systems, as it aids in resource management and scheduling of applications.

Hybrid models[edit]

Hybrid models are a combination of peer-to-peer and client-server models.^[29] A common hybrid model is to have a central server that helps peers find each other. Spotify was an example of a hybrid model [until 2014]. There are a variety of hybrid models, all of which make trade-offs between the centralized functionality provided by a structured server/client network and the node equality afforded by the pure peer-to-peer unstructured networks. Currently, hybrid models have better performance than either pure unstructured networks or pure structured networks because certain functions, such as searching, do require a centralized functionality but benefit from the decentralized aggregation of nodes provided by unstructured networks.^[30]

CoopNet content distribution system[edit]

CoopNet (Cooperative Networking) was a proposed system for off-loading serving to peers who have recently downloaded content, proposed by computer scientists Venkata N. Padmanabhan and Kunwadee Sripanidkulchai, working at Microsoft Research and Carnegie Mellon University.^[31][32] Basically when a server experiences an increase in load it redirects incoming peers to other peers who have agreed to mirror the content, thus off-loading balance from the server. All of the information is retained at the server. This system makes use of the fact that the bottle-neck is most likely in the outgoing bandwidth than the CPU, hence its server-centric design. It assigns peers to other peers who are 'close in IP' to its neighbors [same prefix range] in an attempt to use locality. If multiple peers are found with the same file it designates that the node choose the fastest of its neighbors. Streaming media is transmitted by having clients cache the previous stream, and then transmit it piece-wise to new nodes.

Security and trust[edit]

Peer-to-peer systems pose unique challenges from a computer security perspective.

Like any other form of software, P2P applications can contain vulnerabilities. What makes this particularly dangerous for P2P software, however, is that peer-to-peer applications act as servers as well as clients, meaning that they can be more vulnerable to remote exploits.^[33]

Routing attacks[edit]

Also, since each node plays a role in routing traffic through the network, malicious users can perform a variety of 'routing attacks', or denial of service attacks. Examples of common routing attacks include 'incorrect lookup routing' whereby malicious nodes deliberately forward requests incorrectly or return false results, 'incorrect routing updates' where malicious nodes corrupt the routing tables of neighboring nodes by sending them false information, and 'incorrect routing network partition' where when new nodes are joining they bootstrap via a malicious node, which places the new node in a partition of the network that is populated by other malicious nodes.^[34]

Corrupted data and malware[edit]

The prevalence of malware varies between different peer-to-peer protocols. Studies analyzing the spread of malware on P2P networks found, for example, that 63% of the answered download requests on the gnutella network contained some form of malware, whereas only 3% of the content on OpenFT contained malware. In both cases, the top three most common types of malware accounted for the large majority of cases (99% in gnutella, and 65% in OpenFT). Another study analyzing traffic on the Kazaa network found that 15% of the 500,000 file sample taken were infected by one or more of the 365 different computer viruses that were tested for.^[35]

Corrupted data can also be distributed on P2P networks by modifying files that are already being shared on the network. For example, on the FastTrack network, the RIAA managed to introduce faked chunks into downloads and downloaded files (mostly MP3 files). Files infected with the RIAA virus were unusable afterwards and contained malicious code. The RIAA is also known to have uploaded fake music and movies to P2P networks in order to deter illegal file sharing.^[36] Consequently, the P2P networks of today have seen an enormous increase of their security and file verification mechanisms. Modern hashing, chunk verification and different encryption methods have made most networks resistant to almost any type of attack, even when major parts of the respective network have been replaced by faked or nonfunctional hosts.^[37]

Resilient and scalable computer networks[edit]

The decentralized nature of P2P networks increases robustness because it removes the single point of failure that can be inherent in a client-server based system.^[38] As nodes arrive and demand on the system increases, the total capacity of the system also increases, and the likelihood of failure decreases. If one peer on the network fails to function properly, the whole network is not compromised or damaged. In contrast, in a typical client–server architecture, clients share only their demands with the system, but not their resources. In this case, as more clients join the system, fewer resources are available to serve each client, and if the central server fails, the entire network is taken down.

Distributed storage and search[edit]

There are both advantages and disadvantages in P2P networks related to the topic of data backup, recovery, and availability. In a centralized network, the system administrators are the only forces controlling the availability of files being shared. If the administrators decide to no longer distribute a file, they simply have to remove it from their servers, and it will no longer be available to users. Along with leaving the users powerless in deciding what is distributed throughout the community, this makes the entire system vulnerable to threats and requests from the government and other large forces. For example, YouTube has been pressured by the RIAA, MPAA, and entertainment industry to filter out copyrighted content. Although server-client networks are able to monitor and manage content availability, they can have more stability in the availability of the content they choose to host. A client should not have trouble accessing obscure content that is being shared on a stable centralized network. P2P networks, however, are more unreliable in sharing unpopular files because sharing files in a P2P network requires that at least one node in the network has the requested data, and that node must be able to connect to the node requesting the data. This requirement is occasionally hard to meet because users may delete or stop sharing data at any point.^[39]

In this sense, the community of users in a P2P network is completely responsible for deciding what content is available. Unpopular files will eventually disappear and become unavailable as more people stop sharing them. Popular files, however, will be highly and easily distributed. Popular files on a P2P network actually have more stability and availability than files on central networks. In a centralized network, a simple loss of connection between the server and clients is enough to cause a failure, but in P2P networks, the connections between every node must be lost in order to cause a data sharing failure. In a centralized system, the administrators are responsible for all data recovery and backups, while in P2P systems, each node requires its own backup system. Because of the lack of central authority in P2P networks, forces such as the recording industry, RIAA, MPAA, and the government are unable to delete or stop the sharing of content on P2P systems.^[40]

Applications[edit]

Content delivery[edit]

In P2P networks, clients both provide and use resources. This means that unlike client-server systems, the content-serving capacity of peer-to-peer networks can actually increase as more users begin to access the content (especially with protocols such as Bittorrent that require users to share, refer a performance measurement study^[41]). This property is one of the major advantages of using P2P networks because it makes the setup and running costs very small for the original content distributor.^[42][43]

File-sharing networks[edit]

Gnutella Download

Many file peer-to-peer file sharing networks, such as Gnutella, G2, and the eDonkey network popularized peer-to-peer technologies.

• Peer-to-peer content delivery networks.
• Peer-to-peer content services, e.g. caches for improved performance such as Correli Caches^[44]
• Software publication and distribution (Linux distribution, several games); via file sharing networks.

Copyright infringements[edit]

Peer-to-peer networking involves data transfer from one user to another without using an intermediate server. Companies developing P2P applications have been involved in numerous legal cases, primarily in the United States, over conflicts with copyright law.^[45] Two major cases are Grokster vs RIAA and MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd..^[46] In the last case, the Court unanimously held that defendant peer-to-peer file sharing companies Grokster and Streamcast could be sued for inducing copyright infringement.

Multimedia[edit]

• The P2PTV and PDTP protocols.
• Some proprietary multimedia applications use a peer-to-peer network along with streaming servers to stream audio and video to their clients.
• Peercasting for multicasting streams.
• Pennsylvania State University, MIT and Simon Fraser University are carrying on a project called LionShare designed for facilitating file sharing among educational institutions globally.
• Osiris is a program that allows its users to create anonymous and autonomous web portals distributed via P2P network.

Energy trading[edit]

Companies such as Power Ledger and Bovlabs employ peer-to-peer energy trading platforms.^[47][48]

Other P2P applications[edit]

• Bitcoin and alternatives such as Ether, Nxt and Peercoin are peer-to-peer-based digitalcryptocurrencies.
• Dalesa, a peer-to-peer web cache for LANs (based on IP multicasting).
• FAROO, a peer-to-peer web search engine
• Filecoin is an open source, public, cryptocurrency and digital payment system intended to be a blockchain-based cooperative digital storage and data retrieval method.
• I2P, an overlay network used to browse the Internet anonymously.
• Infinit is an unlimited and encrypted peer to peer file sharing application for digital artists written in C++.
• The InterPlanetary File System (IPFS) is a protocol and network designed to create a content-addressable, peer-to-peer method of storing and sharing hypermedia distribution protocol. Nodes in the IPFS network form a distributed file system.
• JXTA, a peer-to-peer protocol designed for the Java platform.
• Netsukuku, a Wireless community network designed to be independent from the Internet.
• Open Garden, connection sharing application that shares Internet access with other devices using Wi-Fi or Bluetooth.
• Research like the Chord project, the PAST storage utility, the P-Grid, and the CoopNet content distribution system.
• Tradepal and M-commerce applications that power real-time marketplaces.
• The U.S. Department of Defense is conducting research on P2P networks as part of its modern network warfare strategy.^[49] In May, 2003, Anthony Tether, then director of DARPA, testified that the United States military uses P2P networks.
• WebTorrent is a P2P streamingtorrent client in JavaScript for use in web browsers, as well as in the WebTorrent Desktop stand alone version that bridges WebTorrent and BitTorrent serverless networks.
• Microsoft in Windows 10 uses a proprietary peer to peer technology called 'Delivery Optimization' to deploy operating system updates using end-users PCs either on the local network or other PCs. According to Microsoft's Channel 9 it led to a 3%-50% reduction in Internet bandwidth usage.^[50]
• Artisoft's LANtastic was built as a peer-to-peer operating system. Machines can be servers and workstations at the same time.

Social implications[edit]

Incentivizing resource sharing and cooperation[edit]

Cooperation among a community of participants is key to the continued success of P2P systems aimed at casual human users; these reach their full potential only when large numbers of nodes contribute resources. But in current practice, P2P networks often contain large numbers of users who utilize resources shared by other nodes, but who do not share anything themselves (often referred to as the 'freeloader problem'). Freeloading can have a profound impact on the network and in some cases can cause the community to collapse.^[51] In these types of networks 'users have natural disincentives to cooperate because cooperation consumes their own resources and may degrade their own performance.' ^[52] Studying the social attributes of P2P networks is challenging due to large populations of turnover, asymmetry of interest and zero-cost identity.^[52] A variety of incentive mechanisms have been implemented to encourage or even force nodes to contribute resources.^[53]

Some researchers have explored the benefits of enabling virtual communities to self-organize and introduce incentives for resource sharing and cooperation, arguing that the social aspect missing from today's P2P systems should be seen both as a goal and a means for self-organized virtual communities to be built and fostered.^[54] Ongoing research efforts for designing effective incentive mechanisms in P2P systems, based on principles from game theory, are beginning to take on a more psychological and information-processing direction.

Privacy and anonymity[edit]

Some peer-to-peer networks (e.g. Freenet) place a heavy emphasis on privacy and anonymity—that is, ensuring that the contents of communications are hidden from eavesdroppers, and that the identities/locations of the participants are concealed. Public key cryptography can be used to provide encryption, data validation, authorization, and authentication for data/messages. Onion routing and other mix network protocols (e.g. Tarzan) can be used to provide anonymity.^[55]

Political implications[edit]

Intellectual property law and illegal sharing[edit]

Although peer-to-peer networks can be used for legitimate purposes, rights holders have targeted peer-to-peer over the involvement with sharing copyrighted material. Peer-to-peer networking involves data transfer from one user to another without using an intermediate server. Companies developing P2P applications have been involved in numerous legal cases, primarily in the United States, primarily over issues surrounding copyright law.^[45] Two major cases are Grokster vs RIAA and MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.^[46] In both of the cases the file sharing technology was ruled to be legal as long as the developers had no ability to prevent the sharing of the copyrighted material. To establish criminal liability for the copyright infringement on peer-to-peer systems, the government must prove that the defendant infringed a copyright willingly for the purpose of personal financial gain or commercial advantage.^[56]Fair use exceptions allow limited use of copyrighted material to be downloaded without acquiring permission from the rights holders. These documents are usually news reporting or under the lines of research and scholarly work. Controversies have developed over the concern of illegitimate use of peer-to-peer networks regarding public safety and national security. When a file is downloaded through a peer-to-peer network, it is impossible to know who created the file or what users are connected to the network at a given time. Trustworthiness of sources is a potential security threat that can be seen with peer-to-peer systems.^[57]

A study ordered by the European Union found that illegal downloading may lead to an increase in overall video game sales because newer games charge for extra features or levels. The paper concluded that piracy had a negative financial impact on movies, music, and literature. The study relied on self-reported data about game purchases and use of illegal download sites. Pains were taken to remove effects of false and misremembered responses.^[58][59][60]

Network neutrality[edit]

Peer-to-peer applications present one of the core issues in the network neutrality controversy. Internet service providers (ISPs) have been known to throttle P2P file-sharing traffic due to its high-bandwidth usage.^[61] Compared to Web browsing, e-mail or many other uses of the internet, where data is only transferred in short intervals and relative small quantities, P2P file-sharing often consists of relatively heavy bandwidth usage due to ongoing file transfers and swarm/network coordination packets. In October 2007, Comcast, one of the largest broadband Internet providers in the United States, started blocking P2P applications such as BitTorrent. Their rationale was that P2P is mostly used to share illegal content, and their infrastructure is not designed for continuous, high-bandwidth traffic. Critics point out that P2P networking has legitimate legal uses, and that this is another way that large providers are trying to control use and content on the Internet, and direct people towards a client-server-based application architecture. The client-server model provides financial barriers-to-entry to small publishers and individuals, and can be less efficient for sharing large files. As a reaction to this bandwidth throttling, several P2P applications started implementing protocol obfuscation, such as the BitTorrent protocol encryption. Techniques for achieving 'protocol obfuscation' involves removing otherwise easily identifiable properties of protocols, such as deterministic byte sequences and packet sizes, by making the data look as if it were random.^[62] The ISP's solution to the high bandwidth is P2P caching, where an ISP stores the part of files most accessed by P2P clients in order to save access to the Internet.

Current research[edit]

Peer To Peer Software Examples Free

Researchers have used computer simulations to aid in understanding and evaluating the complex behaviors of individuals within the network. 'Networking research often relies on simulation in order to test and evaluate new ideas. An important requirement of this process is that results must be reproducible so that other researchers can replicate, validate, and extend existing work.'^[63] If the research cannot be reproduced, then the opportunity for further research is hindered. 'Even though new simulators continue to be released, the research community tends towards only a handful of open-source simulators. The demand for features in simulators, as shown by our criteria and survey, is high. Therefore, the community should work together to get these features in open-source software. This would reduce the need for custom simulators, and hence increase repeatability and reputability of experiments.'^[63]

Besides all the above stated facts, there have been work done on ns-2 open source network simulator. One research issue related to free rider detection and punishment has been explored using ns-2 simulator here.^[64]

Peer To Peer Software Download

See also[edit]

References[edit]

1. ^Rüdiger Schollmeier, A Definition of Peer-to-Peer Networking for the Classification of Peer-to-Peer Architectures and Applications, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing, IEEE (2002).
2. ^Bandara, H. M. N. D; A. P. Jayasumana (2012). 'Collaborative Applications over Peer-to-Peer Systems – Challenges and Solutions'. Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications. 6 (3): 257–276. arXiv:1207.0790. Bibcode:2012arXiv1207.0790D. doi:10.1007/s12083-012-0157-3.
3. ^ ^abBarkai, David (2001). Peer-to-peer computing : technologies for sharing and collaborating on the net. Hillsboro, OR: Intel Press. ISBN978-0970284679. OCLC49354877.
4. ^ ^abOram, Andrew, ed. (2001). Peer-to-peer: harnessing the benefits of a disruptive technologies. Sebastopol, California: O'Reilly. ISBN9780596001100. OCLC123103147.
5. ^RFC 1, Host Software, S. Crocker, IETF Working Group (April 7, 1969)
6. ^Berners-Lee, Tim (August 1996). 'The World Wide Web: Past, Present and Future'. Retrieved 5 November 2011.
7. ^ ^abcdSteinmetz, Ralf; Wehrle, Klaus (2005). '2. What Is This 'Peer-to-Peer' About?'. Peer-to-Peer Systems and Applications. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. pp. 9–16. doi:10.1007/11530657_2. ISBN9783540291923.
8. ^Ahson, Syed A.; Ilyas, Mohammad, eds. (2008). SIP Handbook: Services, Technologies, and Security of Session Initiation Protocol. Taylor & Francis. p. 204. ISBN9781420066043.
9. ^Zhu, Ce; et al., eds. (2010). Streaming Media Architectures: Techniques and Applications: Recent Advances. IGI Global. p. 265. ISBN9781616928339.
10. ^Kamel, Mina; et al. (2007). 'Optimal Topology Design for Overlay Networks'. In Akyildiz, Ian F. (ed.). Networking 2007: Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks, Wireless Networks, Next Generation Internet: 6th International IFIP-TC6 Networking Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA, May 14-18, 2007 Proceedings. Springer. p. 714. ISBN9783540726050.
11. ^Filali, Imen; et al. (2011). 'A Survey of Structured P2P Systems for RDF Data Storage and Retrieval'. In Hameurlain, Abdelkader; et al. (eds.). Transactions on Large-Scale Data- and Knowledge-Centered Systems III: Special Issue on Data and Knowledge Management in Grid and PSP Systems. Springer. p. 21. ISBN9783642230738.
12. ^Zulhasnine, Mohammed; et al. (2013). 'P2P Streaming Over Cellular Networks: Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities'. In Pathan; et al. (eds.). Building Next-Generation Converged Networks: Theory and Practice. CRC Press. p. 99. ISBN9781466507616.
13. ^Chervenak, Ann; Bharathi, Shishir (2008). 'Peer-to-peer Approaches to Grid Resource Discovery'. In Danelutto, Marco; et al. (eds.). Making Grids Work: Proceedings of the CoreGRID Workshop on Programming Models Grid and P2P System Architecture Grid Systems, Tools and Environments 12-13 June 2007, Heraklion, Crete, Greece. Springer. p. 67. ISBN9780387784489.
14. ^Jin, Xing; Chan, S.-H. Gary (2010). 'Unstructured Peer-to-Peer Network Architectures'. In Shen; et al. (eds.). Handbook of Peer-to-Peer Networking. Springer. p. 119. ISBN978-0-387-09750-3.
15. ^ ^abLv, Qin; et al. (2002). 'Can Heterogeneity Make Gnutella Stable?'. In Druschel, Peter; et al. (eds.). Peer-to-Peer Systems: First International Workshop, IPTPS 2002, Cambridge, MA, USA, March 7-8, 2002, Revised Papers. Springer. p. 94. ISBN9783540441793.
16. ^Shen, Xuemin; Yu, Heather; Buford, John; Akon, Mursalin (2009). Handbook of Peer-to-Peer Networking (1st ed.). New York: Springer. p. 118. ISBN978-0-387-09750-3.
17. ^Typically approximating O(log N), where N is the number of nodes in the P2P system^{[citation needed]}
18. ^Other design choices include overlay rings and d-Torus. See for example Bandara, H. M. N. D.; Jayasumana, A. P. (2012). 'Collaborative Applications over Peer-to-Peer Systems – Challenges and Solutions'. Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications. 6 (3): 257. arXiv:1207.0790. Bibcode:2012arXiv1207.0790D. doi:10.1007/s12083-012-0157-3.
19. ^R. Ranjan, A. Harwood, and R. Buyya, 'Peer-to-peer based resource discovery in global grids: a tutorial,' IEEE Commun. Surv., vol. 10, no. 2. and P. Trunfio, 'Peer-to-Peer resource discovery in Grids: Models and systems,' Future Generation Computer Systems archive, vol. 23, no. 7, Aug. 2007.
20. ^Kelaskar, M.; Matossian, V.; Mehra, P.; Paul, D.; Parashar, M. (2002). A Study of Discovery Mechanisms for Peer-to-Peer Application. pp. 444–. ISBN9780769515823{{inconsistent citations}}
21. ^Dabek, Frank; Zhao, Ben; Druschel, Peter; Kubiatowicz, John; Stoica, Ion (2003). Towards a Common API for Structured Peer-to-Peer Overlays. Peer-to-Peer Systems II. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2735. pp. 33–44. CiteSeerX10.1.1.12.5548. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-45172-3_3. ISBN978-3-540-40724-9.
22. ^Moni Naor and Udi Wieder. Novel Architectures for P2P Applications: the Continuous-Discrete Approach. Proc. SPAA, 2003.
23. ^Gurmeet Singh Manku. Dipsea: A Modular Distributed Hash TableArchived 2004-09-10 at the Wayback Machine. Ph. D. Thesis (Stanford University), August 2004.
24. ^Li, Deng; et al. (2009). Vasilakos, A.V.; et al. (eds.). An Efficient, Scalable, and Robust P2P Overlay for Autonomic Communication. Springer. p. 329. ISBN978-0-387-09752-7.
25. ^Bandara, H. M. N. Dilum; Jayasumana, Anura P. (January 2012). 'Evaluation of P2P Resource Discovery Architectures Using Real-Life Multi-Attribute Resource and Query Characteristics'. IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conf. (CCNC '12).
26. ^Korzun, Dmitry; Gurtov, Andrei (November 2012). Structured P2P Systems: Fundamentals of Hierarchical Organization, Routing, Scaling, and Security. Springer. ISBN978-1-4614-5482-3.
27. ^Ranjan, Rajiv; Harwood, Aaron; Buyya, Rajkumar (1 December 2006). 'A Study on Peer-to-Peer Based Discovery of Grid Resource Information'(PDF){{inconsistent citations}}
28. ^Ranjan, Rajiv; Chan, Lipo; Harwood, Aaron; Karunasekera, Shanika; Buyya, Rajkumar. 'Decentralised Resource Discovery Service for Large Scale Federated Grids'(PDF). Archived from the original(PDF) on 2008-09-10.
29. ^Darlagiannis, Vasilios (2005). 'Hybrid Peer-to-Peer Systems'. In Steinmetz, Ralf; Wehrle, Klaus (eds.). Peer-to-Peer Systems and Applications. Springer. ISBN9783540291923.
30. ^Yang, Beverly; Garcia-Molina, Hector (2001). 'Comparing Hybrid Peer-to-Peer Systems'(PDF). Very Large Data Bases. Retrieved 8 October 2013.
31. ^Padmanabhan, Venkata N.[1]; Sripanidkulchai, Kunwadee [2] (2002). The Case for Cooperative Networking (PostScript with addendum). Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems. Cambridge, MA: Springer (published March 2002). p. 178. doi:10.1007/3-540-45748-8_17. ISBN978-3-540-44179-3. Archived from the original(– ^{Scholar search}) on 2003-07-01.PDF (Microsoft, with addendum)PDF (Springer, original, fee may be required)
32. ^'CoopNet: Cooperative Networking'. Microsoft Research. Project home page.
33. ^Vu, Quang H.; et al. (2010). Peer-to-Peer Computing: Principles and Applications. Springer. p. 8. ISBN978-3-642-03513-5.
34. ^Vu, Quang H.; et al. (2010). Peer-to-Peer Computing: Principles and Applications. Springer. pp. 157–159. ISBN978-3-642-03513-5.
35. ^Goebel, Jan; et al. (2007). 'Measurement and Analysis of Autonomous Spreading Malware in a University Environment'. In Hämmerli, Bernhard Markus; Sommer, Robin (eds.). Detection of Intrusions and Malware, and Vulnerability Assessment: 4th International Conference, DIMVA 2007 Lucerne, Switzerland, July 12-13, 2007 Proceedings. Springer. p. 112. ISBN9783540736134.
36. ^Sorkin, Andrew Ross (4 May 2003). 'Software Bullet Is Sought to Kill Musical Piracy'. New York Times. Retrieved 5 November 2011.
37. ^Singh, Vivek; Gupta, Himani (2012). Anonymous File Sharing in Peer to Peer System by Random Walks (Technical report). SRM University. 123456789/9306.
38. ^Lua, Eng Keong; Crowcroft, Jon; Pias, Marcelo; Sharma, Ravi; Lim, Steven (2005). 'A survey and comparison of peer-to-peer overlay network schemes'. Archived from the original on 2012-07-24.
39. ^Balakrishnan, Hari; Kaashoek, M. Frans; Karger, David; Morris, Robert; Stoica, Ion (2003). 'Looking up data in P2P systems'(PDF). Communications of the ACM. 46 (2): 43–48. CiteSeerX10.1.1.5.3597. doi:10.1145/606272.606299. Retrieved 8 October 2013.
40. ^'Art thou a Peer?'. www.p2pnews.net. 14 June 2012. Archived from the original on 6 October 2013. Retrieved 10 October 2013.
41. ^Sharma P., Bhakuni A. & Kaushal R.'Performance Analysis of BitTorrent Protocol. National Conference on Communications, 2013 doi:10.1109/NCC.2013.6488040
42. ^Li, Jin (2008). 'On peer-to-peer (P2P) content delivery'(PDF). Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications. 1 (1): 45–63 ≤≥. doi:10.1007/s12083-007-0003-1.
43. ^Stutzbach, Daniel; et al. (2005). 'The scalability of swarming peer-to-peer content delivery'(PDF). In Boutaba, Raouf; et al. (eds.). NETWORKING 2005 -- Networking Technologies, Services, and Protocols; Performance of Computer and Communication Networks; Mobile and Wireless Communications Systems. Springer. pp. 15–26. ISBN978-3-540-25809-4.
44. ^Gareth Tyson, Andreas Mauthe, Sebastian Kaune, Mu Mu and Thomas Plagemann. Corelli: A Dynamic Replication Service for Supporting Latency-Dependent Content in Community Networks. In Proc. 16th ACM/SPIE Multimedia Computing and Networking Conference (MMCN), San Jose, CA (2009).'Archived copy'(PDF). Archived from the original(PDF) on 2011-04-29. Retrieved 2011-03-12.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
45. ^ ^abGlorioso, Andrea; et al. (2010). 'The Social Impact of P2P Systems'. In Shen; et al. (eds.). Handbook of Peer-to-Peer Networking. Springer. p. 48. ISBN978-0-387-09750-3.
46. ^ ^abJohn Borland (April 25, 2003). 'Judge: File-Swapping Tools are Legal'. news.cnet.com. Archived from the original on 2012-03-10.
47. ^Power Ledger The Complete Guide: Future Projects and Roadmap
48. ^9 sustainable economy startups aiming to clean up our future
49. ^Walker, Leslie (2001-11-08). 'Uncle Sam Wants Napster!'. The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-05-22.
50. ^Hammerksjold Andreas; Engler, Narkis, 'Delivery Optimization - a deep dive', Channel 9, 11 October 2017, Retrieved on 4 February 2019.
51. ^Krishnan, R., Smith, M. D., Tang, Z., & Telang, R. (2004, January). The impact of free-riding on peer-to-peer networks. In System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 10-pp). IEEE.
52. ^ ^abFeldman, M., Lai, K., Stoica, I., & Chuang, J. (2004, May). Robust incentive techniques for peer-to-peer networks. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM conference on Electronic commerce (pp. 102-111). ACM.
53. ^Vu, Quang H.; et al. (2010). Peer-to-Peer Computing: Principles and Applications. Springer. p. 172. ISBN978-3-642-03513-5.
54. ^P. Antoniadis and B. Le Grand, 'Incentives for resource sharing in self-organized communities: From economics to social psychology,' Digital Information Management (ICDIM '07), 2007
55. ^Vu, Quang H.; et al. (2010). Peer-to-Peer Computing: Principles and Applications. Springer. pp. 179–181. ISBN978-3-642-03513-5.
56. ^Majoras, D. B. (2005). Peer-to-peer file-sharing technology consumer protection and competition issues. Federal Trade Commission, Retrieved from http://www.ftc.gov/reports/p2p05/050623p2prpt.pdf
57. ^The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, (2008). Peer-to-peer network. Retrieved from website: http://www.infosec.gov.hk/english/technical/files/peer.pdf
58. ^Sanders, Linley (2017-09-22). 'Illegal downloads may not actually harm sales, but the European Union doesn't want you to know that'. Newsweek. Retrieved 2018-03-29.
59. ^Polgar, David Ryan (October 15, 2017). 'Does Video Game Piracy Actually Result in More Sales?'. Big Think. Retrieved 2018-03-29.
60. ^Orland, Kyle (September 26, 2017). 'EU study finds piracy doesn't hurt game sales, may actually help'. Ars Technica. Retrieved 2018-03-29.
61. ^Janko Roettgers, 5 Ways to Test Whether your ISP throttles P2P, http://newteevee.com/2008/04/02/5-ways-to-test-if-your-isp-throttles-p2p/
62. ^Hjelmvik, Erik; John, Wolfgang (2010-07-27). 'Breaking and Improving Protocol Obfuscation'(PDF). ISSN1652-926X.
63. ^ ^abBasu, A., Fleming, S., Stanier, J., Naicken, S., Wakeman, I., & Gurbani, V. K. (2013). The state of peer-to-peer network simulators. ACM Computing Surveys, 45(4), 46.
64. ^A Bhakuni, P Sharma, R Kaushal 'Free-rider detection and punishment in BitTorrent based P2P networks', International Advanced Computing Conference, 2014. doi:10.1109/IAdCC.2014.6779311

External links[edit]

Peer To Peer Software Examples Resume

Peer To Peer File Sharing Examples

• Ghosh Debjani, Rajan Payas, Pandey Mayank P2P-VoD Streaming: Design Issues & User Experience Challenges Springer Proceedings, June 2014
• Glossary of P2P terminology
• Foundation of Peer-to-Peer Computing, Special Issue, Elsevier Journal of Computer Communication, (Ed) Javed I. Khan and Adam Wierzbicki, Volume 31, Issue 2, February 2008
• Anderson, Ross J. 'The eternity service'. Pragocrypt. 1996.
• Marling Engle & J. I. Khan. Vulnerabilities of P2P systems and a critical look at their solutions, May 2006
• Stephanos Androutsellis-Theotokis and Diomidis Spinellis. A survey of peer-to-peer content distribution technologies. ACM Computing Surveys, 36(4):335–371, December 2004.
• Biddle, Peter, Paul England, Marcus Peinado, and Bryan Willman, The Darknet and the Future of Content Distribution. In 2002 ACM Workshop on Digital Rights Management, November 2002.
• John F. Buford, Heather Yu, Eng Keong Lua P2P Networking and Applications. ISBN0123742145, Morgan Kaufmann, December 2008
• Djamal-Eddine Meddour, Mubashar Mushtaq, and Toufik Ahmed, 'Open Issues in P2P Multimedia Streaming', in the proceedings of the 1st Multimedia Communications Workshop MULTICOMM 2006 held in conjunction with IEEE ICC 2006 pp 43–48, June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey.
• Detlef Schoder and Kai Fischbach, 'Core Concepts in Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Networking'. In: Subramanian, R.; Goodman, B. (eds.): P2P Computing: The Evolution of a Disruptive Technology, Idea Group Inc, Hershey. 2005
• Ramesh Subramanian and Brian Goodman (eds), Peer-to-Peer Computing: Evolution of a Disruptive Technology, ISBN1-59140-429-0, Idea Group Inc., Hershey, PA, United States, 2005.
• Shuman Ghosemajumder. Advanced Peer-Based Technology Business Models. MIT Sloan School of Management, 2002.
• Silverthorne, Sean. Music Downloads: Pirates- or Customers?. Harvard Business School Working Knowledge, 2004.
• Glasnost test P2P traffic shaping (Max Planck Institute for Software Systems)