Cited by 504Peer-to-Peer Network TechnologiesCopyright and Intellectual PropertyInternet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting

Is P2P dying or just hiding?

Karagiannis, T., Broido, A., Brownlee, N., Claffy, K.C., Faloutsos, M.·2005·IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, 2004. GLOBECOM '04.

Abstract

Recent reports in the popular media suggest a significant decrease in peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing traffic, attributed to the public's response to legal threats. Have we reached the end of the P2P revolution? In pursuit of legitimate data to verify this hypothesis, in this paper, we embark on a more accurate measurement effort of P2P traffic at the link level. In contrast to previous efforts, we introduce two novel elements in our methodology. First, we measure traffic of all known popular P2P protocols. Second, we go beyond the "known port" limitation by reverse engineering the protocols and identifying characteristic strings in the payload. We find that, if measured accurately, P2P traffic has never declined; indeed we have never seen the proportion of P2P traffic decrease over time (any change is an increase) in any of our data sources.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/glocom.2004.1378239

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Relying solely on port numbers has been shown to be ineffective, largely due to the use of dynamic port negotiation, tunneling and misuse of port numbers assigned to well-known applications for obfuscating traffic and avoiding firewalls.

    “Furthermore, relying solely on port numbers has been shown to be ineffective [125,228,320], largely due to the use of dynamic port negotiation, tunneling and misuse of port numbers assigned to well-known applications for obfuscating traffic and avoiding firewalls [54,109,176,286].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 12 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Karagiannis, T., Broido, A., Brownlee, N., Claffy, K. C., & Faloutsos, M.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Riverside (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
Venue
IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, 2004. GLOBECOM '04.
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2005-04-05
Volume
3
Pages
1532-1538
ISSN
1930-529X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1559810148
Cited by
504
References
12
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 33
FWCI
36.13
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Globecom (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Peer-to-Peer Network Technologies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Copyright and Intellectual Property
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Internet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting
Keywords
peer-to-peer file sharing, network traffic statistics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review