Market Leader Programs
5G Transport - A 2023 Heavy Reading Survey 2023 Open RAN Operator Survey Coherent Optics at 100G, 400G, and Beyond Open RAN Platforms and Architectures Operator Survey Cloud Native 5G Core Operator Survey Bridging the Digital Divide 5G Network Slicing Operator Survey Open, Automated & Programmable Transport The Journey to Cloud Native
The solution being discussed is a joint solution between CacheLogic and Caspian. Caspian send suspected P2P flows to CacheLogic's DPI unit where it is analysed to see if it is P2P or not. This is then tagged as P2P and routed back via the Caspian device where appropriate control measures can be applied if necessary. Alternatively an on-net cache can be queried to see if the request can be fulfilled there. The premise of the solution is that DPI does not need to be performed for every packet crossing the wire as many applications are well behaved so the DPI overhead is unnecessary.
This solution can be applied on an "as necessary basis" - i.e. is the pipe getting full, if it is then start DPI and control, if not then just allow traffic through as all users are getting what they need.
With regards to the pipe size, I believe the argument being made here is that for certain providers (specifically cableco's) the upstream is very precious and the whole network was designed on the basis of most services being asymetric. For example a light weight web request up the pipe results in a lot of data coming down the pipe. The problem with P2P is that it is inherently symetric. For every download there has to be an upload. Therefore lots of users using P2P will result in congested upstream.
The point about the pricing models is that the use of a solution such as the joint one proposed allows providers to implement a tactical solution to P2P without needing to resort to a usage based billing model.