Live data from Hacker News

Skype replaces P2P supernodes with Linux boxes hosted by Microsoft

arstechnica.com

91–100 of 107 posts

Re: Skype replaces P2P supernodes with Linux boxes hosted by Microsoft

#91

MS using Linux to run their business. That says it all. A company with more money than it knows what to do with, acting desperately to save itself from obsolescence. Skype was flawed from the outset, being non-transparent (about how the network is set up, turning machines into supernodes withtout permission, and the encryption they use). It's all closed. Why? You can't verify it's well-designed. Now it's worse. Do I…

> Right now, use Skype. But it will not hold the market when more robust, flexible, decentralised, transparent services are ready for non-technical users.

You forgot "easy to use", "fun" and "attractive". Normal people don't care about those things you said.

Re: Skype replaces P2P supernodes with Linux boxes hosted by Microsoft

#92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or instead of engaging in conspiracy theores with zero proof we should look at whats going on here rationally. Skype is really unacceptable in any corporate environment. I don't want a random PC on my network to be a superpeer and suddenly use my 50mbps connection routing calls to the world. Run skype for a couple of mins, fire up tcpview, and watch calls come in and out. Not only is this a waste of my resources it a…

Not only is this a waste of my resources it also provides a shit experience of dropped calls, sudden drops in quality, and connection issues. My experience with Skype, by using it everyday, is not at all similar. Skype for me is the best VoIP system I've ever used. Voice calls work fine even over my phone's 3G connection, which compared to a broadband line is piss poor. Video calls sometime have hiccups, but it worke…

I think the problem is that if you have a very fast connection ("10+ mbps lines") then Skype upgrades you to a super-peer and sacrifices your experience in order to route the calls of other Skype users.

Re: Skype replaces P2P supernodes with Linux boxes hosted by Microsoft

#93

MS using Linux to run their business. That says it all. A company with more money than it knows what to do with, acting desperately to save itself from obsolescence. Skype was flawed from the outset, being non-transparent (about how the network is set up, turning machines into supernodes withtout permission, and the encryption they use). It's all closed. Why? You can't verify it's well-designed. Now it's worse. Do I…

> Right now, use Skype. But it will not hold the market when more robust, flexible, decentralised, transparent services are ready for non-technical users. You forgot "easy to use", "fun" and "attractive". Normal people don't care about those things you said.

Normal people care about price. As in free calls.

All three criteria you mention are very easy to meet. Skype's GUI was thrown together quickly in Delphi. Yet it's good enough for most users. The bar is set very low.

Features could be added to a next generation "open Skype" (e.g. streaming music or video to several of your friends, simultaneously) that would make it even more fun and attractive, but the RIAA and MPAA would be up in arms within 24 hrs of release.

HN is a place where we routinely discuss things that "normal people" don't care about. That doesn't mean those things are not important. Someone has to deal with the details that enable you to make your easy, fun and free calls, though you might not care such details.

Re: Skype replaces P2P supernodes with Linux boxes hosted by Microsoft

#95
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He phrased it like a conspiracy theorist, but it's a little naive to think that intercept capability wasn't a factor in this decision. As far as I know skype was the biggest player in communications that wasn't being completely monitored.

My first thought as well, this is simply a quiet decision to make it easier to comply with sealed warrants.

Ideally companies would be making it harder or impossible to comply with sealed warrants.

Re: Skype replaces P2P supernodes with Linux boxes hosted by Microsoft

#96
When I had a fixed IP address and no NAT between the internet and my PC, I regularly caught Skype promoting me to supernode and using a serious part of my bandwidth. It made me get into the habit of quitting Skype unless I wanted to make a call. Perhaps I can keep it running now.

Re: Skype replaces P2P supernodes with Linux boxes hosted by Microsoft

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one possible explanation, and I think there's a healthy amount of skepticism required when analyzing moves like this, but it's not the only explanation. Keep in mind that a large part of Microsoft's business is in the enterprise, and voice is a huge application product for enterprise customers. Exchange has always had some form of voice integration. I haven't used it in years (since back when H.323 was big), s…

Setting up the connections is not the "magic". That is not a hard problem. It's been solved years ago. First, P2P networks to not have to be enormous. Drop your assumptions. They can be small, and separated. (Think VLAN.) A P2P network can be set up so that any peer can volunteer to be a supernode. (Skype doesn't let you choose.) There must be at least one supernode to get a connection started but it does not have to…

I think you might have missed my point. The P2P portion isn't the amazing part for me, it's that Skype call quality is so good without any of the traditional network engineering requirements I'm used to.

I work out of Florida, but most of my partners are in Ohio. Our phones in the Ohio office are delivered by a SIP carrier. The SIP carrier provides a router that establishes separate VLANs (on the local network) for the phones and computers. The phone traffic is prioritized so it goes out over the WAN link first. Granted, once it hits the internet all bets are off, but at least the voice packets are hitting the wire first. That should make our telephones the best performing VoIP option in the Ohio office.

That's not reality though. Everyone in the Ohio office prefers Skype because the call quality is better and the connection is more consistent/resilient.

I can read a SIP trace, and I understand a little bit about CODEC design. I can somewhat reliably identify the difference between a G.711 call and a G.729 call just by listening. In other words, I'm not a complete layman, but I'm not a voice engineer. What amazes me about Skype is that their voice stack performs so well without any special considerations at the network layer.

In an ideal world, a voice engineer wants not only a separate VLAN for voice traffic on the LAN, but prioritization all the way to the PSTN termination point. This usually means you need to get your transport link from the same carrier who provides your voice service. For example, if you buy SIP service from Level 3, Level 3 can also sell you a transport link, on which they can prioritize your voice traffic all the way back to the place where they connect to the PSTN. This assures the best possible transport quality.

Skype has none of this, but still manages to deliver great call quality. That is amazing to me, and it's a game changer. It decouples your voice and data provider.

The key reason to move away from P2P isn't technical, but business related. Enterprise decision makers demand more control over their network. By controlling the super-nodes, Microsoft opens the door for a whole different kind of customer:

Integrate Skype in to Exchange

With Skype integrated in to Exchange, desktop devices (Skype phones) could be segregated on to their own VLAN. The Exchange/Skype service (running on a server) can be bound to a network interface on this separate VLAN. This satisfies common enterprise network design requirements where voice is prioritized on the LAN. This would also provide an internal endpoint for Skype clients to connect to and pass through a set of business rules and/or integrate with internal applications. This is a typical use case for Exchange. Exchange would also handle call routing. Think of Exchange as the PBX, keeping intra-office calls on the LAN, and routing outside calls over a configured link.

Moving Skype Super-Nodes to Dedicated Infrastructure

The best reason to integrate Skype with Exchange is to replace the traditional SIP carrier. When a user picks up a Skype phone on their desk and dials by directory, the call hits Exchange. Exchange can examine the call and make some interesting decisions:

Directory lookup matches a local Skype username: call is routed entirely over the LAN.

Directory lookup matches a Skype user, but user is not local: call is routed over the outbound interface and through the traditional Skype infrastructure (now run by MS instead of P2P).

Directory lookup only contains a traditional telephone number: call is routed over the outbound interface and through the traditional Skype infrastructure (now run by MS instead of P2P), which terminates to the PSTN.

With Microsoft running the super-node, they have better control over the performance of the Skype back end.

The benefit of the ability to bypass the PSTN can't be understated. Many carriers offer what is called "free on-net calling". If your call is placed to another user on the same carrier, it is free, regardless of their geographical location. Skype could do the same. If you're calling another Skype user, the call is free. If you need to punch out to the PSTN, you get normal Skype rates.

The chances of an enterprise buyer considering this type of service over P2P is remote at best. There might not be any technical reason P2P couldn't satisfy the requirement, but it's bad joo-joo from a purchaser's perspective. They want assurances, and MS owned/run super-nodes make a lot of sense.

Re: Skype replaces P2P supernodes with Linux boxes hosted by Microsoft

#98
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one option. Other options: a) datacenter bandwidth is now much cheaper than it was 10 years ago, to the point that the cost saving from using p2p is not that significant anymore. (Skype did not have zero operating cost, and contrary to the article, they did operate their own supernodes - few tens to a few hundreds at least). b) Microsoft is going to change the business model, e.g. no more free calls (or, no mo…

Unless a significant number of paying users decide that they don't want their calls going through a US company with a history of security and monopoly issues. So you should now assume that ALL your skype calls are being recorded and monitored and anything of interest to the US authorities is now available to them ? Are you doing anything in the US that might be considered naughty - like online gambling, tax 'optimiza…

The biggest change occurred when Skype sold to a US corporation. That ship has sailed. P2P or not, Skype became a US company when it sold to MS. Even before that, you never had any guarantees about where/who your calls were routed to/through.

"So you should now assume that ALL your skype calls are being recorded and monitored and anything of interest to the US authorities is now available to them ?"

Unless the network is secured by you end-to-end (e.g., encrypted tunnel and you're the private key holder), you should assume that your call can be intercepted and recorded. In the context of Skype, that was never true, so nothing has changed.

So yes, there have been significant changes, but all the concerns you outlines are fringe issues at best. Skype was never any kind of secure communications system where you were safe from persecution by overreaching governments.

Re: Skype replaces P2P supernodes with Linux boxes hosted by Microsoft

#99
post #26

My biggest complaint with Skype is its inability to persist chat messages when one client is disconnected. If this addresses that it would be great. That said, we're using HipChat now and love it. If you use Skype for group chat and don't use the phone a lot, I recommend the switch wholeheartedly.

Say what now? It always seemed to do that quite fine for me. If a client drops off, I can still send messages, and they'll sit in the window with the little "working" circle next to t hem. The partner picks them up when they reconnect. I've logged in more than once to have a metric ton of IM's waiting for me.

But if you send a message they won't see your message until you're both online again. So if you sign off before you sign on, it won't send until both clients are online again (could be days).

If you use multiple computers it gets worse - if you send the message from your laptop it won't go through until the laptop and your friend are online again.

Its not a huge problem with a 1 on 1 chat, but with groups its frustrating.

We benefit greatly from having the chat room as sort of a canonical log of what's happening. Its nice to be able to leave a message for coworkers before you sign off for the night, and know that everyone will see it. With Skype we didn't have that guarantee.

Re: Skype replaces P2P supernodes with Linux boxes hosted by Microsoft

#100
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The brilliant and problematic property of the translation (and why I think it will catch up) is that it allows to easily make your today's problems someone else's problems five years down the road. Noone gives a ding about what happens in five years in one's network - let alone the larger internet. BTW, next time you talk with the "address-hiding security" fans, check what result they get from http://panopticlick.eff…

I'm one of those "address-hiding security" fans - I've architected and deployed more than 7 million (currently operational) IPv6 nodes, 100% of them in RFC 4193 space. We have many layers of security. Link Layer Security, Application Layer Security, Firewall Security, IPsec Security, App Transport Security in addition to the non-routability security. I've never understood security professional who turn their nose up…

Once again - "addressability != accessibility". I think the benefits of being able to reference the host even if for abuse tracking, or netflow cross-correlation, etc. - outweigh the obscurity advantages of NATs.

If I were concerned to have a diode-like gateway, I'd get a stateful firewall, or on cisco boxes, configure the reflexive ACL. It comes for free with the base code, IIRC.

This all said - each individual network's mileage can vary, so we could argue till dawn - and I think we'd need to agree to disagree on the matter of the "security of NAT" :) If it makes someone sleep better - I think it's served its purpose. Much like throwing away the soda bottle before boarding the plane.

Post reply on HN