1. [Presumed] Peer-to-Peer Network Activity and Related Management at Michigan State University David A. Gift Vice Provost, Libraries, Computing and Technology Internet2 Fall Member Meeting October 2003 Indianapolis, IN

2. Physical network connectivity on the campus: 1 Gbps campus backbone 1 Gbps connection to Internet 10 and 100 Mbps individual connections Context (2002)…

3. ~15,000 on-campus-resident students; ~45,000 total enrollment No rules about student servers MSU cooperates with copyright complaints; Initial response is investigation (false-positives & intrusions) MSU does not “snoop” into network activity… So, presumption of P2P activity as suggested by indirect indicators Context…

4. Peak Internet bandwidth demand doubled from Spring 2002 to Fall 2002 Doubling (again) of peak bandwidth demand on 23 Sep 2002 (release date of Kazaa v2) Emergent complaints from residence hall occupants about network performance Experience in 2002…

5. Experience… RIAA and other copyright complaints:

6. Throttle applied: Residence hall living units only Outbound only Packet lengths >400 bytes 400 Mbps total peak bandwidth Later reduced to 350 Mbps First-ever network management…

7. Campus Connection to Internet (Oct ’01 – Oct ‘02) (expanded view) Router changeover No throttling Throttle applied: Residence halls only Outbound (from MSU) only 400 Mbps limit… 350 Mbps… … for packets >400 bytes only Blue = Outbound Green = Inbound

8. Inform students -- RHA meetings; State News coverage Network performance Cost, and options to put Internet costs into room fees University added across-the-board component to room fees Students: Charge us; don’t take away our bandwidth Other actions…

9. Cost sharing options ApproachCharacteristics Build average cost into Housing rates Place in context of overall price (like other utilities) No differential cost for differential use (no metering of individual use; individual use may be program- driven) Easy and inexpensive to administer No explicit economic incentive to control use Separate fee (average cost -- same to all) More visible as cost, but no real economic incentive to control use Looks like “nickel-and-dimeing” More expensive to administer Individual fee (whether for total use or for “excess” use) Differential cost for differential use Very visible as cost; most direct incentive to control use (but will it really affect use?) Requires individual metering and invoicing Complex and expensive to administer

10. Peak bandwidth demand reduced ~30% (all due to outbound traffic) General complaints about network performance largely went away (but single users could still “hog” bandwidth) Specific complaints about upload speeds remained Enterprising students set their max. packet length to 399 bytes Results…

11. By January 2003, peak bandwidth demand again moving toward 1 Gbps Needed to do more… RIAA and other copyright complaints:

12. Needed to do more… New approach to throttling applied just prior to student move-in, Fall 2003: Individual connections in residence hall living units each limited to: 10 Mbps inbound 128 Kbps outbound

13. Campus connection to Internet Blue = Outbound Green = Inbound One residence hall connection to campus backbone Blue = Inbound Green = Outbound Results…

14. Few, if any, complaints about network performance Peak bandwidth demand reduced ~50% compared to Spring 2003 Outbound : Inbound Internet traffic more nearly 1:1 Results…

15. Negatives: this approach limits student server and other upload operations (prefer a “network inductor”) RIAA and other copyright complaints