* [Bitcoin-development] A bitcoin UDP P2P protocol extension
@ 2013-03-23 7:17 Jeff Garzik
2013-03-23 10:42 ` Randy Willis
2013-03-23 22:30 ` Mark Friedenbach
0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2013-03-23 7:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bitcoin Development
Here is a rough draft implementation of a UDP P2P protocol extension
for bitcoin:
https://github.com/jgarzik/bitcoin/tree/udp
http://yyz.us/bitcoin/udp-v0.patch
Protocol specification (such that it is):
- UDP, bound to same port as TCP P2P (normally 8333)
- Active, simultaneous TCP P2P connection required (useful against DoS
and other attacks)
- Same message format as TCP P2P, same pchMessageStart conventions,
etc. (my CNetMessage pull req would be helpful here)
- Multiple P2P messages per UDP packet permitted
- Max UDP packet size 100*1024 bytes
- Advertises NODE_UDP in nServices
- New "getudpcook" TCP P2P command returns a "udpcook" message,
containing a yummy cookie
- UDP P2P commands "inv", "tx" and "addr" are handled as if received via TCP
- UDP P2P command "udpsub" sets a mask, that subscribes to one or more
data broadcasts.
- When USM_INV_BCAST mask bit is set, receive "inv" messages via UDP
rather than TCP.
Project and design goals (or, why do this?):
- It is theorized that UDP may be useful for some messages we
broadcast throughout the network
- A productive discussion STARTS with code, otherwise discussion
continues forever.
- Investigate improving "inv" relay speed
- Investigate unconditional "tx" broadcasting via UDP, as "inv"
alternative, for small tx's.
- Investigate improving block relay speed (or perhaps block header relay speed)
- Open up new design avenues, for P2P patterns more suited to UDP than
TCP in general.
--
Jeff Garzik
exMULTI, Inc.
jgarzik@exmulti•com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: [Bitcoin-development] A bitcoin UDP P2P protocol extension
2013-03-23 7:17 [Bitcoin-development] A bitcoin UDP P2P protocol extension Jeff Garzik
@ 2013-03-23 10:42 ` Randy Willis
2013-03-23 14:52 ` Luke-Jr
2013-03-23 22:30 ` Mark Friedenbach
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Randy Willis @ 2013-03-23 10:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bitcoin Development
Not looked at code yet, some thoughts:
1) In IPv4 max UDP data size is 65507 bytes.
2) What about big messages (block)?
3) I think relay speed can be increased only by reducing network diameter.
Introducing super-nodes with thousands of connected peers can greatly help here.
4) The only (IMO) UDP advantage: hole punching. But requirement of active
TCP connection defies it. And hole punching will need protocol extension.
5) unsolicited tx broadcast will increase traffic of nodes (especially well-connected)
and less people will run them.
---- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti•com>
To: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 7:17 AM
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] A bitcoin UDP P2P protocol extension
Here is a rough draft implementation of a UDP P2P protocol extension
for bitcoin:
https://github.com/jgarzik/bitcoin/tree/udp
http://yyz.us/bitcoin/udp-v0.patch
Protocol specification (such that it is):
- UDP, bound to same port as TCP P2P (normally 8333)
- Active, simultaneous TCP P2P connection required (useful against DoS
and other attacks)
- Same message format as TCP P2P, same pchMessageStart conventions,
etc. (my CNetMessage pull req would be helpful here)
- Multiple P2P messages per UDP packet permitted
- Max UDP packet size 100*1024 bytes
- Advertises NODE_UDP in nServices
- New "getudpcook" TCP P2P command returns a "udpcook" message,
containing a yummy cookie
- UDP P2P commands "inv", "tx" and "addr" are handled as if received via TCP
- UDP P2P command "udpsub" sets a mask, that subscribes to one or more
data broadcasts.
- When USM_INV_BCAST mask bit is set, receive "inv" messages via UDP
rather than TCP.
Project and design goals (or, why do this?):
- It is theorized that UDP may be useful for some messages we
broadcast throughout the network
- A productive discussion STARTS with code, otherwise discussion
continues forever.
- Investigate improving "inv" relay speed
- Investigate unconditional "tx" broadcasting via UDP, as "inv"
alternative, for small tx's.
- Investigate improving block relay speed (or perhaps block header relay speed)
- Open up new design avenues, for P2P patterns more suited to UDP than
TCP in general.
--
Jeff Garzik
exMULTI, Inc.
jgarzik@exmulti•com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] A bitcoin UDP P2P protocol extension
2013-03-23 10:42 ` Randy Willis
@ 2013-03-23 14:52 ` Luke-Jr
2013-03-23 15:24 ` Jeff Garzik
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Luke-Jr @ 2013-03-23 14:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bitcoin-development, Randy Willis
On Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:42:26 AM Randy Willis wrote:
> Introducing super-nodes with thousands of connected peers can greatly help
> here.
UDP is connectionless.
I would hope any UDP bitcoin protocol doesn't try to emulate a connection. :/
Luke
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] A bitcoin UDP P2P protocol extension
2013-03-23 14:52 ` Luke-Jr
@ 2013-03-23 15:24 ` Jeff Garzik
2013-03-23 22:01 ` Caleb James DeLisle
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2013-03-23 15:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luke-Jr; +Cc: bitcoin-development
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
> On Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:42:26 AM Randy Willis wrote:
>> Introducing super-nodes with thousands of connected peers can greatly help
>> here.
>
> UDP is connectionless.
> I would hope any UDP bitcoin protocol doesn't try to emulate a connection. :/
It depends on the usage. Simply broadcasting a TX or INV to a remote
peer does not require a connection, clearly... but you probably want
to signal acceptance of those messages somehow.
But other uses, like subscribing to a broadcast, does require some
notion of an association.
In the rough draft, a parallel TCP connection with version/verack
sequence is required, and you may make use of it if a connection is
needed.
But that is just one approach. A more robust, heavyweight UDP P2P
might be a hole-punching TCP alternative. It's up to the community
and results of experimentation.
Bittorrent has evolved a full transfer protocol over UDP, to get
around firewalls and the like.
--
Jeff Garzik
exMULTI, Inc.
jgarzik@exmulti•com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] A bitcoin UDP P2P protocol extension
2013-03-23 15:24 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2013-03-23 22:01 ` Caleb James DeLisle
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Caleb James DeLisle @ 2013-03-23 22:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bitcoin-development
On 03/23/2013 11:24 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
>> On Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:42:26 AM Randy Willis wrote:
>>> Introducing super-nodes with thousands of connected peers can greatly help
>>> here.
>>
>> UDP is connectionless.
>> I would hope any UDP bitcoin protocol doesn't try to emulate a connection. :/
>
> It depends on the usage. Simply broadcasting a TX or INV to a remote
> peer does not require a connection, clearly... but you probably want
> to signal acceptance of those messages somehow.
>
> But other uses, like subscribing to a broadcast, does require some
> notion of an association.
>
> In the rough draft, a parallel TCP connection with version/verack
> sequence is required, and you may make use of it if a connection is
> needed.
>
> But that is just one approach. A more robust, heavyweight UDP P2P
> might be a hole-punching TCP alternative. It's up to the community
> and results of experimentation.
>
> Bittorrent has evolved a full transfer protocol over UDP, to get
> around firewalls and the like.
>
Bittorrent uses UDP in 2 ways and for different reasons.
The tracker protocol is now UDP because large trackers are under such
enormous strain from short lived HTTP connections (40Gb/s) that there
have been instances of upstream routers becoming overloaded from the
storm of SYN, ACK and FIN messages. UDP helps solve that.
The inter-peer protocol is now UDP because TCP does not play nice in
the context of bufferbloat and Bittorrent needs lots of active TCP
connections to work, exacerbating the problem. In this instance
Bittorrent uses a full userspace TCP stack which just sends w/ UDP.
+1 for experimenting with UDP, we might learn some interesting things.
It's worthwhile to actually speed test UDP v. TCP because the time to
send an INV on an established TCP connection with Nagle disabled may
not be significantly longer than that for sending with UDP.
Also +1 for experimentation with sending a small transaction instead
of an INV, if INVs are not being grouped because we want the fastest
possible network propagation, they are mostly overhead anyway. If
b/w is more important than propagation speed then of course TCP/Nagle
is the way to go.
Thanks,
Caleb
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] A bitcoin UDP P2P protocol extension
2013-03-23 7:17 [Bitcoin-development] A bitcoin UDP P2P protocol extension Jeff Garzik
2013-03-23 10:42 ` Randy Willis
@ 2013-03-23 22:30 ` Mark Friedenbach
2013-03-24 0:57 ` Jay F
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Mark Friedenbach @ 2013-03-23 22:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: Bitcoin Development
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2414 bytes --]
If you're considering a datagram protocol, you might be interested in some
more modern alternatives to UDP:
UDT: Breaking the Data Transfer Bottleneck
http://udt.sourceforge.net/
Stream Control Transmission Protocol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_Control_Transmission_Protocol
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti•com> wrote:
> Here is a rough draft implementation of a UDP P2P protocol extension
> for bitcoin:
>
> https://github.com/jgarzik/bitcoin/tree/udp
> http://yyz.us/bitcoin/udp-v0.patch
>
> Protocol specification (such that it is):
>
> - UDP, bound to same port as TCP P2P (normally 8333)
> - Active, simultaneous TCP P2P connection required (useful against DoS
> and other attacks)
> - Same message format as TCP P2P, same pchMessageStart conventions,
> etc. (my CNetMessage pull req would be helpful here)
> - Multiple P2P messages per UDP packet permitted
> - Max UDP packet size 100*1024 bytes
> - Advertises NODE_UDP in nServices
> - New "getudpcook" TCP P2P command returns a "udpcook" message,
> containing a yummy cookie
> - UDP P2P commands "inv", "tx" and "addr" are handled as if received via
> TCP
> - UDP P2P command "udpsub" sets a mask, that subscribes to one or more
> data broadcasts.
> - When USM_INV_BCAST mask bit is set, receive "inv" messages via UDP
> rather than TCP.
>
> Project and design goals (or, why do this?):
>
> - It is theorized that UDP may be useful for some messages we
> broadcast throughout the network
> - A productive discussion STARTS with code, otherwise discussion
> continues forever.
> - Investigate improving "inv" relay speed
> - Investigate unconditional "tx" broadcasting via UDP, as "inv"
> alternative, for small tx's.
> - Investigate improving block relay speed (or perhaps block header relay
> speed)
> - Open up new design avenues, for P2P patterns more suited to UDP than
> TCP in general.
>
> --
> Jeff Garzik
> exMULTI, Inc.
> jgarzik@exmulti•com
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
> Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
> Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3533 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] A bitcoin UDP P2P protocol extension
2013-03-23 22:30 ` Mark Friedenbach
@ 2013-03-24 0:57 ` Jay F
2013-03-24 1:22 ` Gregory Maxwell
2013-03-24 2:27 ` Mark Friedenbach
0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Jay F @ 2013-03-24 0:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bitcoin Development
My first concern was that I and about everyone else only has TCP/UDP
port forwarding, but at least for the first:
UDT uses UDP to transfer bulk data with its own reliability control and
congestion control mechanisms. Multiple UDT flows can share a single UDP
port, thus a firewall can open only one UDP port for all UDT connections.
The latter appears not so friendly to NAT.
On 3/23/2013 3:30 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> If you're considering a datagram protocol, you might be interested in
> some more modern alternatives to UDP:
>
> UDT: Breaking the Data Transfer Bottleneck
> http://udt.sourceforge.net/
>
> Stream Control Transmission Protocol
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_Control_Transmission_Protocol
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] A bitcoin UDP P2P protocol extension
2013-03-24 0:57 ` Jay F
@ 2013-03-24 1:22 ` Gregory Maxwell
2013-03-24 2:08 ` Jeff Garzik
2013-03-24 2:27 ` Mark Friedenbach
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Gregory Maxwell @ 2013-03-24 1:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jay F; +Cc: Bitcoin Development
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Jay F <jayf@outlook•com> wrote:
> My first concern was that I and about everyone else only has TCP/UDP
> port forwarding,
You tunnel it!
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps-00
You could do worse to have a data stream that looks like WEBRTC traffic…
In some ways SCTP is a pretty optimal transport for Bitcoin like messaging.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] A bitcoin UDP P2P protocol extension
2013-03-24 1:22 ` Gregory Maxwell
@ 2013-03-24 2:08 ` Jeff Garzik
2013-03-24 9:11 ` Ralph J.Mayer
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2013-03-24 2:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gregory Maxwell; +Cc: Bitcoin Development
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail•com> wrote:
> In some ways SCTP is a pretty optimal transport for Bitcoin like messaging.
Darn near everything can be shoehorned into a "message" So
absolutely agreed... in theory. Been an SCTP fan for years.
Firewall practices tend to put a damper on cool new protocols like that, though.
--
Jeff Garzik
exMULTI, Inc.
jgarzik@exmulti•com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] A bitcoin UDP P2P protocol extension
2013-03-24 0:57 ` Jay F
2013-03-24 1:22 ` Gregory Maxwell
@ 2013-03-24 2:27 ` Mark Friedenbach
1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Mark Friedenbach @ 2013-03-24 2:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jay F; +Cc: Bitcoin Development
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1601 bytes --]
Nearly all of these new(er) user-mode transports run over UDP, so you can
hole-punch and port forward just the same. Some which don't can
nevertheless be tunneled, to the same effect.
Ultimately I don't have any skin in this game though. Just trying to save
someone from reinventing a perfectly good wheel ;)
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Jay F <jayf@outlook•com> wrote:
> My first concern was that I and about everyone else only has TCP/UDP
> port forwarding, but at least for the first:
>
> UDT uses UDP to transfer bulk data with its own reliability control and
> congestion control mechanisms. Multiple UDT flows can share a single UDP
> port, thus a firewall can open only one UDP port for all UDT connections.
>
> The latter appears not so friendly to NAT.
>
>
> On 3/23/2013 3:30 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> > If you're considering a datagram protocol, you might be interested in
> > some more modern alternatives to UDP:
> >
> > UDT: Breaking the Data Transfer Bottleneck
> > http://udt.sourceforge.net/
> >
> > Stream Control Transmission Protocol
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_Control_Transmission_Protocol
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
> Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
> Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2531 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-03-24 9:24 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-03-23 7:17 [Bitcoin-development] A bitcoin UDP P2P protocol extension Jeff Garzik
2013-03-23 10:42 ` Randy Willis
2013-03-23 14:52 ` Luke-Jr
2013-03-23 15:24 ` Jeff Garzik
2013-03-23 22:01 ` Caleb James DeLisle
2013-03-23 22:30 ` Mark Friedenbach
2013-03-24 0:57 ` Jay F
2013-03-24 1:22 ` Gregory Maxwell
2013-03-24 2:08 ` Jeff Garzik
2013-03-24 9:11 ` Ralph J.Mayer
2013-03-24 2:27 ` Mark Friedenbach
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox