[tahoe-lafs-trac-stream] [Tahoe-LAFS] #1179: use μTP

[Tahoe-LAFS]

#1179: use μTP
------------------------------+-----------------------------------
     Reporter:  zooko         |      Owner:
         Type:  enhancement   |     Status:  new
     Priority:  major         |  Milestone:  undecided
    Component:  code-network  |    Version:  1.8β
   Resolution:                |   Keywords:  firewall availability
Launchpad Bug:                |
------------------------------+-----------------------------------
Description changed by zooko:

Old description:

> μTP is a "low extra delay transport" designed and implemented by
> !BitTorrent, Inc.. It might have some advantages over TCP for our
> purposes, such as allowing more interactive network usage (web page
> loads, ssh sessions) to proceed unhindered while Tahoe-LAFS is uploading
> or downloading files "in the background", navigating past NATs more
> easily (see related issues #169 (tcp hole-punching!), #49 (UPnP), and #50
> (STUNT/ICE)), avoiding strange limitations on TCP connections (e.g.
> #605), or other benefits. It might also have drawbacks.
>
> We would probably want to support both TCP-based and μTP-based transport
> for the forseeable future, choosing between them based on whether the
> peer supports μTP and whether the user wants this operation to be
> "foreground" (they are watching the movie as it downloads) or
> "background" (they are browsing the web while the movie downloads in the
> background).
>
> See Brian Warner's and Greg Hazel's detailed discussion about what it
> would take to use μTP in Tahoe-LAFS in the mailing list messages below.
>
> What's the next step on this? I'm not sure, but I think that the best
> strategy would be to concentrate on #510 (use plain HTTP for storage
> server protocol) and think about integrating μTP with that future HTTP-
> based Tahoe-LAFS protocol instead of with the current foolscap-based
> Tahoe-LAFS protocol.
>
> Here are some tahoe-dev messages about it:
>
>  * http://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2010-May/004381.html
>  * http://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2010-May/004396.html
>  * http://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2010-May/004397.html
>  * http://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2010-May/004398.html
>  * http://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2010-May/004400.html
>  * http://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2010-June/004405.html
>  * http://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2010-June/004407.html
>  * http://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2010-July/004669.html
>  * http://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2010-August/004861.html
>
> Here are some arguments about various aspects of μTP's design and
> implementation:
>
>  * http://forum.bittorrent.org/viewtopic.php?id=119
>  * http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=69592
>  * http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=69416

New description:

 μTP is a "low extra delay transport" designed and implemented by
 !BitTorrent, Inc.. It might have some advantages over TCP for our
 purposes, such as allowing more interactive network usage (web page loads,
 ssh sessions) to proceed unhindered while Tahoe-LAFS is uploading or
 downloading files "in the background", navigating past NATs more easily
 (see related issues #169 (tcp hole-punching!), #49 (UPnP), and #50
 (STUNT/ICE)), avoiding strange limitations on TCP connections (e.g. #605),
 or other benefits. It might also have drawbacks.

 We would probably want to support both TCP-based and μTP-based transport
 for the forseeable future, choosing between them based on whether the peer
 supports μTP and whether the user wants this operation to be "foreground"
 (they are watching the movie as it downloads) or "background" (they are
 browsing the web while the movie downloads in the background).

 See Brian Warner's and Greg Hazel's detailed discussion about what it
 would take to use μTP in Tahoe-LAFS in the mailing list messages below.

 Here are some tahoe-dev messages about it:

  * [//pipermail/tahoe-dev/2010-May/004381.html]
  * [//pipermail/tahoe-dev/2010-May/004396.html]
  * [//pipermail/tahoe-dev/2010-May/004397.html]
  * [//pipermail/tahoe-dev/2010-May/004398.html]
  * [//pipermail/tahoe-dev/2010-May/004400.html]
  * [//pipermail/tahoe-dev/2010-June/004405.html]
  * [//pipermail/tahoe-dev/2010-June/004407.html]
  * [//pipermail/tahoe-dev/2010-July/004669.html]
  * [//pipermail/tahoe-dev/2010-August/004861.html]

 Here are some arguments about various aspects of μTP's design and
 implementation:

  * http://forum.bittorrent.org/viewtopic.php?id=119
  * http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=69592
  * http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=69416

--

--
Ticket URL: <https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1179#comment:3>
Tahoe-LAFS <https://Tahoe-LAFS.org>
secure decentralized storage