Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
The Internet

Gnutella2 Specs - Part 1 236

Mr Fodder writes "The first part of the Gnutella2 specs are finally up." Our previous Gnutella2 story has a little more information.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gnutella2 Specs - Part 1

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 17, 2002 @03:24PM (#4691721)
    I think that packets related to pr0n should get a higher priority on the network. Has that been addressed in this version?
    • I think that packets related to pr0n should get a higher priority on the network.

      Hey, it the Internet. There are seldom any other sorts of packets on the network.
    • Pr0n QoS issues (Score:3, Informative)

      by 0x0d0a ( 568518 )
      Pr0n priority levels have been a concern of many P2P network users for some time. While the collection of protocol updates in gnutella2 has many general performance enhancements, it does (rather glaringly) lack any improvements specifically addressing the pr0n issue. A good deal of user upset has been produced by this -- however, fortunately much of the furor is undeserved.

      Improvements to improve your pr0n viewing experience are well underway in many *clients*, rather than in the protocol itself -- protocol changes would produce compatibility issues. A number of proposed improvements include changes to the routing system to use dictionary-based priority changing. Query and result packets containing entries with phrases such as "tits", "ass", or "CowboyNeal nude" will be given an elevated priority in sending, improving latency for those users who really need pr0n. There has been some debate over whether this is entirely appropriate -- it reduces fairness -- but when it comes right now to it, pr0n-obtaining is a task with hard realtime constraints. The Gnutella developers and GDF members recognize that the goal of P2P software should be to best serve the community as a whole -- and so some unfairness will be allowed.

      Preliminary dictionaries for the new routing prioritization may be downloaded from various of the GDF developers -- links have been posted in relevant discussion on the GDF board. The proposed dictionary format allows granting of variable priority -- "tits" matching a packet might increase the routing class by 1, but "teen lesbian slut" would increase it by 3, giving it priority over merely "tits" packets.

      There is some concern over abuse -- that users hungry for low latency may simply include terms like these in their filenames. Indeed, a few users have already begun doing so. A second solution, perhaps blacklisting, may have to be used later on if this becomes a severe issue.

      Because of the real-time nature of Gnutella, there are limits that can be placed on how much latency alteration that can be made. Queues are never massive at a single node, since most clients allow only relatively small send buffers. Early tests show 10% to 40% improvement on high-priority pr0n-containing packets. This is somewhat variable depending upon the network traffic -- if background traffic is composed mostly of smaller "ping" packets (instead of result packets), latency improvements tend toward the latter number.

      There are a few other improvements on the table. Those of you that follow my work know that I'm interested in distributed trust used to rank the users. This trust network can be adapted to rank users based on the quality of the pr0n they serve, and give higher priority to users that give really top-notch pr0n -- unfortunately, this requires a client UI (and effort on the part of the user) to do manual ranking.

      One more controversial proposal includes a Freenet-like network-wide caching system. Pr0n that is being frequently downloaded will be mirrored to as many systems as possible. This will improve download speed (and end-user experience, as people will be able to view locally-cached pr0n, and thus be introduced to new and interesting forms of pr0n). The p-cache (as it's already being called) even goes Freenet one better -- it is being designed to support speculative caching based on past searches. If your client catches even a hint, based on the searches that you've done, that you might be remotely interested in "cuties in French maid outfits on the beach", say, it will search and download all the related files it can find on the Gnutellanet. Aside from the massive cache of pr0n that builds up (if the user chooses to browse it), this is mostly user-transparent, yielding only low latency, high-availability pr0n searches tailored to your tastes.

      Also notable is the support (for pr0n only, I'm afraid -- scarce network resources must be conserved) for multicast, introduced with the new UDP support. When you request a download of a large file, a remote server can give you a time offset until the file will be sent -- usually, an hour or two -- and will establish you as a "subscriber" of this file. When the time expires, the server will multicast-stream the pr0n file to all people that have subscribed to the broadcast. Now, an "hour or two" may seem like a long time, but it's far better than simply waiting in a unicast queue, possibly for days. You will need to be on the MBONE for this -- some college users or business users with videoconferencing may already have this handled, but the rest will need to request "MBONE support" from their ISP.
  • I may be wrong (Score:3, Flamebait)

    by Henry V .009 ( 518000 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @03:24PM (#4691724) Journal
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Shareza just making their own protocol and stealing Gnutella's name for it?
    • Sort of (Score:2, Informative)

      by sgtsanity ( 568914 )

      It's really closer to the jump between HTML and XML. The new specification is more extensible, and has more optimizations than Gnutella. It's essentially the trends in Gnutella today taken to somewhat of a logical conclusion. Plus, instead of just lumping in Gnutella developments like hashing files, it uses it in the base design of the network. And at the same time G2 hubs and leafs can play nicely with G1 peers.

      So, to answer your question, for the moment it's more of a complement to Gnutella than a replacement. However, as time goes on and more clients adopt the new protocol, it may eventually replace it. Your original question was a bit to inherently harsh.

    • Re:I may be wrong (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anenga ( 529854 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @04:21PM (#4692014)
      Well, here's the story.

      Micheal Stokes (Shareaza [shareaza.com] developer>) thought that the GDF (Gnutella Developers Forum) was a too slow at fixing Gnutella's problems (unscalable, too much unused bandwidth, unorgnaized for future additions) so he went ahead himself (by himself) and wrote Gnutella2. He has done this before, when he wrote the spec for "Remote Queueing" (kind of like IRC). He wrote his spec first, developed it in his client, released it then proposed the idea to the GDF. The GDF likes it and now Limewire, Bearshare and Gnucleus all support it.

      The GDF is pissed that Mike went ahead and "updated Gnutella" without asking them first. Granted, they have a right to. The GDF is meant to be a consensus, a forum for all developers. And a "assumed" condition of that is to let the other developers know *ahead of time* before going ahead and doing something this massive. And the entire idea that he called it "Gnutella2" (using the Gnutella brand) and advertised it as the "next revolution in P2P" (which it actually, IMO, is) pisses them off even more.

      However, if you notice, it seems only the developers with corperate ties are pissed. Other clients such as GTK (Linux), Gnucleus, etc. all seem interested in the protocol, I believe GTK already said they'd implament it. Limewire and BearShare still seem upset. (It's like owning a oil company, then someone comes out with electricty - sucks).

      Anyways, Mike likes the Gnutella ideals - that it is open and free. So he called it "Gnutella2". Partly to "refresh" Gnutella and revive Gnutella's bad image it has with the general user (which it has achieved IMO) and to show users it's the "second generation" of Gnutella.

      The Protocol is being released now. This is part one, the next one will go over the new packet encapsulation and what not.
      • by Sanity ( 1431 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @07:21PM (#4692956) Homepage Journal
        "next revolution in P2P" (which it actually, IMO, is)
        Hardly. Directed searches for information (rather than the Gnutella/Gnutella2)-style broadcast search, has been around for a while now. For example, Freenet has employed a directed search from day one (albeit with a slightly different application), and FASD is a good example of how this can be generalized to fuzzy searching.

        Calling Gnutella2 the "next revolution in P2P" would be like calling the latest model in horse-pulled carriages the "next revolution in transportation" years after the advent of the motor car.

  • I am curious.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mumblestheclown ( 569987 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @03:26PM (#4691737)
    I am curious to hear stories of anybody who has at any point used gnutella to do anything but transmit copyrighted material in any substantial way.

    By "monitoring" requests in limewire or by putting in ambiguous search terms, I estimate that well, well, well over 99% of files available through gnutella-based p2p services are copyrighted.

    Oh yes, we all have heard the usual arguments. Technology doesn't break the law, people do. Aka, the Pontius Pilate / Eichmann defense.

    • Re:I am curious.. (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I used LimeWire to try downloading a RedHat 8.0 ISO once, but even with a swarm download from several people, it was slower than a single FTP download.
    • by Per Wigren ( 5315 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @03:43PM (#4691834) Homepage
      I've used it to download Grim Fandango again, because CD2 of my original Grim Fandango broke when I accidentially dropped it on the floor and rolled my chair over it. :)

    • I think we are beyond this, already. It's no secret that copyrighted materials are being traded. The question is, is that legal? If not, should it be? Is it fair use to download a copyrighted song? Is it fair use if you download it and listen to it for the purpose of deciding whether you want to buy the CD or not? Is it fair use if you owned the music previously, but lost/broke the CD?

      The best question of all: Would the labels make more money offering their songs inexpensively over the internet in high quality mp3/ogg formats, rather than pissing off their customers and TRYING to thwart open digital formats? (I stress "TRYING.")

      One day they will wake up. Until then, I couldn't care less how much copyrighted material is traded online... the legalities of which are only clear to the RIAA (i.e. "it's illegal").
    • Granted, this is off of the FastTrack network, but the information is still valid.

      1. Dungeon Siege Demo
      2. Day of Defeat Patch (Halflife Mod)
      3. Alias Season 2 episode 1

      Note that two of these are definitely freely distributable. The third one is not available anywhere else - and I have yet to hear of a big* hubbub concerning TV shows.

      *there is a small hubbub, but nobody REALLY seems to care - I'll let you speculate as to why that is
      • I'll admit to using kazaalite to downlaod mostly copyrighted material, but in the form of TV shows, my Great Archive of Late 20th/Early 21st Century Cartoons [tripod.com] (and some music vids and other stuff)has been built entirely from Kazaa. Most of these things are not avalible anywhere else(the old ghostbusters cartoon, TMNT, etc). This seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate use for this. An added bonus is that I dont watch much TV anymore. And before anyone points it out, i'll admit that those movies in there are mine, i know its illegal, i'm not being hypocritical because i mostly use it for legitimate things. Also, all my shared files are mp3s of local artists, a few that i bought, but mostly ones i got free at shows, i doubt these small bands would have any problems with their music being spread.
    • You are correct in saying %99 of data on the Gnutella network is copyrighted, but so what? Simply put, P2P is the future of how we store and exchange data, so the record companies, software publishers, and others need to adjust. People want P2P, and they will have it.

      I'm not saying it's right, but it's a fact.

    • by Anenga ( 529854 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @04:11PM (#4691979)
      OpenOffice recently asked the P2P community to help out in distributing it's massive install file over their networks.

      It's now on Gnutella2.

      magnet:?xt=urn:bitprint:S5Q756FJ7326XXDGA7KZBF25 PC RWCT7Y.XKR2LGSL2K3DR4CTE5H5PDZGQCZOKN2NJWOOQHQ&dn= OOo_1.0.1_Win32Intel_install.zip

      I get 15 sources in seconds. (G2 required - good luck on G1)
    • by Cerlyn ( 202990 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @04:33PM (#4692072)

      In the United States (at least), everything made since 1923 was, has been, and still are copyrighted, even if they were never registered with the copyright office. So everything you see on a peer-to-peer network is indeed copyrighted.

      A more approriate question (as some of the responders have answered) is if anyone has used a peer to peer network for a legitamite purpose. The problem here is that the issues are quite grey. If I have Game X, or Game System version 1.1 can I download copies of the games/BIOS/etc. online for use with emulators/replacements for broken discs/etc.? If an online broadcaster, paying royalty fees, uses ABAcast [abacast.com] or Peercast [peercast.org] to distribute their works, do I in turn have to pay royalty fees since I am rebroadcasting them?

      Unfortunately, there is a major gap between what people think they can do under copyright law and what they actually can do. While I have not extensively researched the above (IANAL), technically, all the above commonly considered legitamite things are *illegal* unless you have worked some deal out to repay the copyright holders.

      The problem you really should be asking is if anyone uses P2P networks to delibrately distribute their copyrighted works, either as a primary or secondary channel. A few minor bands likely do. The next question is if you'll ever find them on Slashdot. And I do not know the answer for that.

      Note I personally have *never* used Napster, Gnutella, Kazza, or any of the other networks, mainly because being caught doing so may jepordize my ability to be hired in certain areas. I used to be one of those nasty college network administrators trying to keep your P2P usage down because it overloading our bandwidth, and we could not order a significantly bigger pipe because our local phone switch could not handle it. Feel free to flame me for my ignorance as you will.

      • even if they were never registered with the copyright office

        Actually, there are a few restrictions. Up until 1980-something, unless you put "Copyright 1993 Foobar" or "[copyright symbol] 1993 Foobar" on a work, it didn't get copyright protection.
    • ISO's for BSD.. ( though speed suked and never finished )
      Replacement songs for scratched / broke CDS..
      Copies of songs for work that i own ( disk at home )..
      HTML texts ( ala guntenburg )..
      Clipart for a presentation.. ( should be legal anyway )

    • At LimeWire we are definitely trying to extend Gnutella's uses. One project we are working hard on is making it easy to build private networks. Currently Gnutella is a public network, but people may want to form private groups to share private material.
      A 'real world' example: a Art History department may want to share digital photos of art with faculty and students but not have to maintain a dedicated server. They can utilize the power of p2p if they could easily form a private network, one that would leverage the CPU and bandwidth of all participating users.
      Currently it is hard to *only* connect certain nodes or only *allow* certain nodes to connect. We are working on a complete solution at LimeWire. The first iteration will allow a tech admin to easily set up a private network. The second iteration should incorporate privacy and security to keep out unwanted guests (supported by a username / password infrastructure).

      Obviously, private secure networks can be utilized by criminals and terrorists to exchange potentially illegal information. Nevertheless, the same can be done with PGP, secure telephones, etc. already. There is a lot of truth in the statement that p2p networks are defined by the users, not the developers.
    • Actually, around 99% of the files from FTP are there to trade copyrighted information, and everybody knows that most of the web is used for porn. (Only during 9/11 did news sites surpass porn sites, and only for one day.) Most of IRC is being used for trading of copyright information, also.

      My question is: what's your point? We like warez and porn.
    • Re:I am curious.. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Foresto ( 127767 )

      "I am curious to hear stories of anybody who has at any point used gnutella to do anything but transmit copyrighted material in any substantial way."

      I can't help noticing a similarity between copyrighted material on p2p, and porn on home video. Just as porn drove home video technology into becoming an industry and commodity, copyrighted stuff seems to be driving file sharing network technology toward becoming a viable distribution method. Right now, p2p seems to be approaching an adolescent stage of development, as it begins to address scalability issues and alternative applications like efficient radio broadcasts. This technology is becoming more useful, and as it does, I expect it will used to solve more problems than just swapping MP3s.

      In other words, don't assume just because you see copyright infringement now, that the tech won't be something we all rely on for legal activity in the future.
      • Oh bullshit.

        The underlying claim from your argument is that P2P solves a technological problem - namely, bandwidth limitation. This was echoed a few posts above by somebody (quoting a limewire press release?) giving the example of where an "art history department could share its works with limewire rather than by having a dedicated server." Bandwidth limitations (the art history example arguably uses MORE bandwidth in P2P form) will be solved by people developing more wires, and other technologies are far more suited and adapted to "efficient radio broadcasts" over the web than anything relating to the porn-eminem-dvd-rip-warez-a-thon that is current p2p.

        You are trying to justify a technology by mating it to a perceived, likely non-existent problem or future benefit of indeterminate nature.

        Just because VCRs spawned a video industry doesn't mean that P2P will spawn any sort of money maker (and, to counter the patently assinine claim of somebody further up that rightsholders need to adjust their technologies because new technologies have come into being, I don't see anybody arguing that we should all grow bulletproof skin because of the development of handguns). Even if in the case of videos, the MPAA (or whoever) initially protested against what would ultimately be in their own self-interest doesn't mean that they are necessarily in the same position now.

        • "The underlying claim from your argument is that P2P solves a technological problem - namely, bandwidth limitation."

          Please don't put words in my mouth. Even if that's almost what I wrote, it is not exactly what I wrote.

          "You are trying to justify a technology by mating it to a perceived, likely non-existent problem or future benefit of indeterminate nature."

          Next time you want to make such an absolute statement, you might want to do the research first.

          The problem exists. I will give one example here: Epiphany Radio. [epiphanycorp.com] This is a shoutcast station I used to listen to, until I ran into a 12 user limit [shoutcast.com] imposed because the broadcasters can't afford the bandwidth to support many users. However, thanks to peer to peer technology [peercast.org], I can once again listen to this station, via their peercast stream [peercast.org].

          This is an example of p2p being used to solve a real problem, without copyright infringement. It is a fact, whether or not you were aware of it or want to acknowledge it. It is quite possible that we will see more examples as time and technology progress.

          I am not trying to justify anything. I am simply pointing out an observation, and a possibile eventuality.
    • Since most of the people using Gnutella seem to be people trading music and warez, I'd really like to have a seperate Gnutella network for things like distribution ISOs, rpms, debs, tar.gz, etc.
    • Oh yes, we all have heard the usual arguments. Technology doesn't break the law, people do. Aka, the Pontius Pilate / Eichmann defense.

      Laws have a way of changing with the times.

      For nearly a century it was legal in the US to buy human slaves, and to treat them however you wanted. You could whip them, beat them, and rape thier wives without any fear of recrimination whatsoever. It took almost 100 years of this before America came to its moral senses, and took a stand for the rights of all people. Regardless of color, creed, etc.

      It's a little known fact that initially the south supported this change. They repented thier moral wrongdoing, and the majority of southerners agreed to cooperate. The only provision was that the US government would compensate the south for thier losses. I.e. the country as a whole would pay for the regrettable history of slavery by putting tax dollars towards weaning the south away from slavery...and into a new business model which didn't require slavery. The northerners took the very selfish stance of claiming that it was the south's fault for using slaves in the first place, and that they didn't deserve any kind of financial support to help them make the transition.

      This of course left the southerners only 2 alternatives:

      1) Relinquish slavery in all its forms and become pennyless(if you think un-employment is bad now...).
      2) Fight for thier way of life(thier right to eat, and stay clothed, etc)

      Obviously there really was no choice for them. American history, like all histories, has a way of demonizing the losing side...but in fact the north was very cowardly and selfish in refusing to bear thier share of the legacy of slavery.

      What's the point to all this?

      I would argue that we're in a very similar situation now as relates to intellectual property and copyrights. Businesses who rely on intellectual property to support thier "way of life" are terribly threatened by things like file-sharing. They are human beings too, and they shouldn't have to give up thier standard of living. But at the same time, they are slaveholders.

      Who are the slaves? We are. The history, and indeed the very culture of our generation is steeped in books, movies, television, music, video/computer games, etc. The merits/de-merits of this aside...it's largely true that a great deal of "ourselves" is derived from these things. The problem of course is that our culture is completely subsidized. We don't have the right to re-visit our culture unless we can afford it.

      I'm not sure, but it seems as if this is the first time in history where this has happened. For thousands of years culture was passed down by word of mouth, festivals, plays, music, poetry, etc. etc. the vast majority of which was free...even taken for granted. People, even the poor, had a right to themselves and thier culture. Today we have to stand in line before an iron gate, and pay tribute to the keyholders if we want to remember who we are. A terribly dehumanizing prospect.

      The controversy is obvious, and much like the days before the cival war, both sides are right. Unfortunately it appears as if history will repeat itself, and that noone will make the sacrifices neccesary to avoid a conflict. Someone is going to get burned at the expense of someone else...hopefully this will be the last time however. Because in a post-scarcity society it's a win-win situation.

      • It's a little known fact that initially the south supported this change. They repented thier moral wrongdoing, and the majority of southerners agreed to cooperate. The only provision was that the US government would compensate the south for thier losses. I.e. the country as a whole would pay for the regrettable history of slavery by putting tax dollars towards weaning the south away from slavery...and into a new business model which didn't require slavery. The northerners took the very selfish stance of claiming that it was the south's fault for using slaves in the first place, and that they didn't deserve any kind of financial support to help them make the transition.


        Interesting... any sources (esp. online) where I can find out more about this?

        Also, do you happen to be a southerner? You sure seem to understand the issues and people's sympathies. Perhaps you can explain why there's so much feeling for the days of the Confederacy? What inspires the depth of feeling? It can sure seem like the grass-is-greener to an outsider...
        • nteresting... any sources (esp. online) where I can find out more about this?

          Unfortunately I couldn't find any material on-line. As I said though, history tends to be highly revisionist in ways that benefit/support the side of the victor. This information isn't easy to find in historical text.

          Also, do you happen to be a southerner?

          I was born in Michigan, and spent the majority of my life living in the north. I am now living in Atlanta, and have been here for 8 years. So I do have some exposure to both sides of the story.
    • The real question is, has anyone used Gnutella to successfully transmit significant amounts of copyrighted material? I know I haven't, and not by choice either.
  • Shareaza's gnutella? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Superfarstucker ( 621775 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @03:27PM (#4691742)
    Shareaza is the only gnutella client that even uses this '2.0' protocol so im more inclined to say that its not really a new gnutella protocol but more or less an extension of the current gnutella client (apparently they didnt like the rate @ which gnutella was progressing)..
    • It's the only client that uses it because it has yet to be documented. The specs are now becoming avaliable - what's your point?

      If other clients don't adopt Gnutella2, or something better/as good then they'll be pushed out of the market, simple as that.

      (apparently they didnt like the rate @ which gnutella was progressing)..

      Look at it yourself. Do you think it was progressing well?
  • I'm waiting for a prequel.
  • Awesome (Score:4, Funny)

    by baywulf ( 214371 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @03:29PM (#4691755)
    Yet again I will be able to get "backup" copies of all the music and videos I soon plan to buy!
    • Yet again I will be able to get "backup" copies of all the music and videos I soon plan to buy!

      And I will be able to get previews of the movies I plan to rent, using the TV-out on my graphicscard!

  • The first part of the Gnutella2 specs are finally up.

    Go go Slashdot....
  • Ranking system (Score:5, Interesting)

    by caluml ( 551744 ) <slashdot@nOspaM.spamgoeshere.calum.org> on Sunday November 17, 2002 @03:33PM (#4691786) Homepage
    I hope they're going to build in some kind of peer-approved ranking system. The more stuff you share, the more searches you answer, the more files you let people have, should go towards boosting your "karma?" which in turn allows your searches to get processed more quickly.

    I wonder how many people simply don't share anything, or have a firewall and don't open any ports for Gnutella.
  • by autopr0n ( 534291 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @03:47PM (#4691865) Homepage Journal
    If I'm not mistaken, there is no 'gnutella commision', and nullsoft certanly isn't involved in the project.

    I was actualy pretty into the protocol and all that, gosh, two years ago. I even got a partial implementation going in java. (I could create a node that would pass along messages, and view search requests. By the way, I have to say Gnutella was about the most fucked up protocol I have ever implemented)

    Anyway, even then (the summer of 2000) there was all kinds of talk about "GnutellaNG" i.e. Next Generation. But since there was no central authority, no one really cared, and other implementors whent off to create other kinds of networks.

    I guess what I'm askng hear is, how does this differ from any of the other GnutellaNG ideas floating around? Or, if did some random person just make an announcement and sucker slashdot into posting about it?
    • I guess what I'm askng hear is, how does this differ from any of the other GnutellaNG ideas floating around? Or, if did some random person just make an announcement and sucker slashdot into posting about it?

      How about the fact it isn't vaporware anymore. There is a damn client [shareaza.com] that already supports it. And there is now a protocol spec being proposed.

      People can talk talk talk, but can you do the walk walk walk? Apparently somebody finally can.
  • by caluml ( 551744 ) <slashdot@nOspaM.spamgoeshere.calum.org> on Sunday November 17, 2002 @03:48PM (#4691866) Homepage
    Is there any way that the rsync algorithms can be used so that if you download a huge file, and only 4k is corrupted, you can "fill in" the gaps?
  • I wonder... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by darkov ( 261309 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @03:52PM (#4691888)
    How much support do these protocol extensions have from the other big players in gnutella like Bearshare or Limewire?

    I've already noticed some fracturing in the network, in subtle ways - for instance Bearshare implements a queueing function that others do not (it seems). Esentially, when I use Bearshare other non-Bearshare clients cannot download from me since the queue is full of Bearshare clients.

    Does anyone know more about what's going on?
  • So far nothing new (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 17, 2002 @03:55PM (#4691907)
    I'm a idler on the gnutella develeper forum (gdf) mailing list and i can say that there is not a single new idea in this part of the spec.
    Every single feature was either implemented in an other client before shareaza or has been discussed on the gdf. OTOH, shareaza does have some hard data on how the ideas work now, so they have at least contributed something.
    • by Anenga ( 529854 )
      I'm a idler on the gnutella develeper forum (gdf) mailing list and i can say that there is not a single new idea in this part of the spec.
      Their "Query Keys" idea, which provides authorization with hubs before sending out UDP queries (which if not used could use Gnutella as a dDos attack against, say, slashdot) was never in the GDF (and using Gnutella1 right now, you could use it as a dDos tool). And the entire protocol Mike posted is very different from Limewire's GUESS spec., which everyone thought Mike just "stole".
  • DoS Attacks (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 17, 2002 @03:57PM (#4691918)
    In the article it mentions DoS attacks from inside the network. The author should address DoS issues stemming from outside the network.

    The main focus at the beginning of the article was on making the amount of hubs smaller. This is convenient for someone (RIAA) who wishes to take down the network. Now they have less hubs to packet.
  • by Superfarstucker ( 621775 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @03:59PM (#4691928)
    there is a group of developers that collaborate to determine what goes into the next release and new features that get added to the 'official' protocol, and AFAIK they have had nothing to do with this 'gnutella 2.0'. Most consider (except for the people who maintain the protocol) gnutella a failure anyway..
  • I'd be interested... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by zogger ( 617870 )
    I'd be interested in a project like this IF it didn't require or recommend that you share or open up your system to riaa music videos or kiddie porn or warez. I am skeptical that at some time the goons are gonna be all over this and start homeland security busting people. As soon as they have like a trapdoor or whatever, or the technical ability and incentive to do so, I imagine it will happen. As in the mother of all hacks. Our society is rapidly closing in on "closing in". The tech and resources available to big corporations and the politics they control and the fascists is becoming overwhelming. Homeland security law when it gets signed is a carte blanche for widespread data mining and list making effort, and given how previous statist regimes act, this new one will be horrible. And given their track record for lying, planting evidence, etc, other assorted goodies, well, I sorta don't trust any of this stuff-not yet anyway. Every single day professional sysadmins get hacked, guys who's profession is to keep up on security and they still fail, I am under no illusions that I am 'better"at that then those fellows, I am not. And most people on these networks are *not* as well, no matter whatever illusions of elitness they are under. And I have no desire to share that which is not mine to share lawfully, or that I find repugnant and immoral. I understand the differences between anonymous freenet and an open directory/share of your mp3's whatnot, I know they are similar but different, and the alleged cryptography etc, just something like this is needed and cool, but the applications so far are 90% abusive by the users(I am rough guesstimating here of course), near as I can tell. I wish there was an "honest and ethical "way" to go about this, but so far not seeing it. Only private subscription networks that aren't anonymous and have accountability attached to them are trustworthy, the rest of them can have half the users being pederasts or pervos or cops or assorted music/movies goons, and they have already stated over and over agaqin that they ARE going to issue bogus files, trojans, traces, whatever snoopy and cracky stuff is at their disposal, so my thinking is-it ain't worth it. Not this way anyway, some other venue I'll give a *perhaps* if it presents itself.
  • by smd4985 ( 203677 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @04:27PM (#4692052) Homepage
    As a developer of open-source software for the OPEN Gnutella protocol, I find publishing of THE Gnutella2 spec by ONE development team laughable. The spec may be revealing about how the latest Shareaza client works, but to say it describes Gnutella2 is NOT true. The Shareaza guys simply use Gnutella to boostrap their new 'Shareaza1' network, they haven't redefined the Gnutella protocol.

    The truth is that Gnutella2 is on the way, but not from Shareaza. Gnutella2 is a loose connection of various enhancements to the Gnutella network that have been implemented over the last year or so by SEVERAL COOPERATING Gnutella vendors. The latest enhancement is GUESS, which was introduced before Shareaza's new searching methodology and seems to be Shareaza's inspiration.

    The Shareaza people continue to attempt to preempt Gnutella as THEIR protocol, when in fact they are pretty much branching off from the network. Shareaza should feel free to leave the OPEN Gnutella network, but please don't try to steal a name that belongs to the users and developers of Gnutella.
    • by Anenga ( 529854 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @04:49PM (#4692163)
      The client he works on is "Limewire".

      I find publishing of THE Gnutella2 spec by ONE development team laughable

      Then lets hear you? I haven't seen any replies in the GDF from Limewire on the spec yet. You find that specs being released by Shareaza are laughable, but what about when Limewire proposes their GUESS proposal? Or "CHORD" proposal? Didn't "one development team" work on those? Sure, you released it before actually implamenting it, but still... the rest of the GDF just questioned about it, you were really the only development team. People don't say "Gnutella's GUESS proposal" they say "Limewire's GUESS proposal".

      The latest enhancement is GUESS, which was introduced before Shareaza's new searching methodology and seems to be Shareaza's inspiration.

      Can Limewire stop saying that? Which is totally and utterly untrue?!! Mike was working on G2 long before you sent him your spec on GUESS. He told you in a private e-mail that he was working on it before hand, and that he would probably release his with GUESS.

      And the specs released today are **VERY DIFFERENT** from your damn GUESS proposal.

      implemented over the last year or so by SEVERAL COOPERATING Gnutella vendors

      Oh, and what about your Remote Queueing feature? Shareaza founded that, and it's included in Limewire. Mike wants to cooperate, but your not giving him a chance.

      The Shareaza people continue to attempt to preempt Gnutella as THEIR protocol, when in fact they are pretty much branching off from the network.

      "Shareaza People"? There is only one developer for Shareaza, Mike. Shareaza supports G1 and G2, it supports "Gnutella".
  • .. Here's the URL for the page on Gnutella 2 gnutella://bitprint:SZEVSITNQSWDTP5ZWBMQECIXMGZNKE 6S.WZVZRBAWW6AEC7OW6MZ66IUW5TLF2SZVCYPTBLA/gnutell a2_search.htm/ Just copy and paste into Shareaza to download the page. Neat, eh?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 17, 2002 @04:38PM (#4692096)
    There are several steps in the right direction, but the new design still doesn't do enough to address impact on the network. I work at a public sector ISP and we try like heck not to "censor" traffic based on port numbers, but lately we have had to kill off several PtP applications because they were hosing links and firewalls. Since much of the next-to-last-mile is using flow-based methods to make the Internet fair, not to mention asymetrical NAT, any PtP structure needs to put a higher priority on limiting the number of "flows" or "conversations" (hostA:portA hostB:portB).
    This *does* include UDP as many routers/firewalls/packet shapers do perform flow-based rules on UDP conversations as well.
    We've seen a relatively small link full of Bubster traffic bring a medium-end firewall to it's knees
    by causing far too many conversation setup/teardowns. GnuTella should try to construct a network of long-lived inter-hub connections such that a query is never sent over a *new* connection more than a a few hundred times. Fortunately the new design is at least progress.
  • the real gnutella (Score:5, Informative)

    by asv108 ( 141455 ) <alex@phata[ ]o.org ['udi' in gap]> on Sunday November 17, 2002 @04:43PM (#4692124) Homepage Journal
    As mentioned in previous posts, the specification posted has nothing to do with Gnutella, Sharazea is just stealing a widely recognized name, this specification has nothing to do with Gnutella. If your interested in real gnutella development go to the Gnutella Developers Forum [yahoo.com]. There are quite a few open source clients available, the most popular being Limewire [limewire.org] and Gnucleus [gnucleus.com].

    I've been playing around with the limewire source for ahwile, it is well documented and there is no spyware in the open source version. I love how people complain about Limewire and spyware, when it is open source. Anyone can take the gpled limewire source and package it without spyware without having to reverse engineer it like closed source KaZaa.

    • by dr.badass ( 25287 )
      That's funny, because it seems to work just fine with other clients. At this very minute, I'm connected to 1 Shareaza Hub and 3 Limewire UltraPeers.

      I don't blame you for spouting such FUD, as I assumed that Shareaza was trying to hijack Gnutella as well. But by actually using it, I've realized that it's not. Nor is it spyware ladden like KaZaa or LimeWire ("repackaging" aside). It's actually the best gnutella client I've ever used.
  • Dont get me wrong its not to help the RIAA or anything. I just would like a peer network where you could exchange only free uncopyrighed stuff. Today such things drown in britney Spears and porno and goes unoticed. A browsable peer network filled with only free stuff would lift it up and give legitimacy to peer networks. Today people trying to distribute free or new music etc. dissapears totally from the surface under a big pile of copyrighted crap. Pirating is actually in essence hurting unsigned and struggling musicians.

    Maybe im the only one in the whole world who doesnt like to pirate, i dunno.
    • Creative Commons [creativecommons.org] is an effort to develop technical standards which will allow various flavors of "free" content to be identified.

      The file sharing networks themselves are agnostic on the matter of how the owner of a work intends for it to be distributed. The software justs see files and shares them, it can't tell the difference.
    • Try Furthur (Score:3, Informative)

      by nestler ( 201193 )
      Check out http://www.furthurnet.org.

      Legitimate P2P sharing of live music.
  • neighbours (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    So if you have 6 hubs, all neighbours to each other, and the first gets a request it sends it to its neightbours. Then they all send the request to their neighbours??

    How do they stop circular requests? Don't send to the request to the one that requested it is simple enough, but what about "multiple inheritence"?

    Hub A knows hub B and hub C, but not D. Both B and C know D. D gets the same request twice?
    A
    / \
    B C
    \ /
    D

    Can't A tell B and C to talk to each other once in a while and temporarilly remove D from either B or C's neighbour list to prevent wasting bandwidth? As soon as B or C goes down D can then automatically be re-added to D the neighbour list of the hub that is still up.
  • Legitimate P2P (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mcrbids ( 148650 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @07:00PM (#4692865) Journal
    P2P most certainly DOES have legitimate applications... Ever hear of Bit Torrent? [bitconjurer.org]

    Essentially, the idea is this: When you are downloading a file, when you receive a packet of data, you now have that packet of data, and there's no reason you can't immediately share that packet of data.

    So, people downloading something from a Bit-Torrent capable site are themselves distributing the content... as it is being downloaded!

    The end result is that a huge number of clients can download content (iso images, etc) from a site without increasing the total bandwidth usage of the site by much at all.

    Check it out - it's pretty amazing!
    • Shareaza/Gnutella/Gnutella2 already does this.

      It's a combination of Partial File Sharing, Remote Queueing, Download Mesh (Alternative Sources) and Swarming. Works very well, actually.

"Mr. Spock succumbs to a powerful mating urge and nearly kills Captain Kirk." -- TV Guide, describing the Star Trek episode _Amok_Time_

Working...