Taxonomy of P2P Applications

E.H.T.B. Brands and G. Karagiannis

University of Twente, the Netherlands
[email protected], [email protected]

Abstract—Peer-to-peer (p2p) networks have gained immense on these characteristics developers can select existing
popularity in recent years and the number of services they solutions provided by other applications with similar
provide continuously rises. Where p2p-networks were formerly characteristics. Researchers can use the identified
known as file-sharing networks, p2p is now also used for services characteristics of an application for doing a qualitative
like VoIP and IPTV. With so many different p2p applications comparison among other applications with similar
and services the need for a taxonomy framework rises. This characteristics.
paper describes the available p2p applications grouped by the To create such taxonomy the following research question will
services they provide. A taxonomy framework is proposed to
be answered in this paper:
classify old and recent p2p applications based on their
characteristics. • How can p2p applications be accurately classified?
In order to answer this question correctly and completely four
Keywords- p2p, applications, taxonomy, characteristics sub questions are proposed. These sub questions will provide a
step-by-step answer to the main question:
I. INTRODUCTION 1. What p2p applications are currently available?
Peer-to-peer networks (also known as p2p) have gained 2. What are the main characteristics of the available p2p
immense popularity in recent years. Their ability to harness applications?
the computing power and resources of a large number of 3. How could the p2p characteristics be used to generate the
network computers makes them much more powerful than a p2p taxonomy?
centralized server. The number of p2p applications is growing 4. How could new p2p applications be categorized in this
fast and so is the number of different services p2p provides. taxonomy?
Where p2p networks were formally known as file sharing This research will mainly be based on literature study, analysis
networks, p2p networks are nowadays used for, for example, of requirements and taxonomy design. The four research
Voice over IP (VoIP), IPTV and distributed data storage. questions are answered in four corresponding sections. The
With so many different services provided by p2p applications first two sections are based on literature study to the state of
their characteristics vary widely. The questions arise: what the art of p2p networking. The first section gives an overview
characteristics make an application a p2p application and is a of the p2p applications currently available. The second section
certain application really a p2p application? The Internet addresses the main characteristics of these applications. In
Research Task Force (IRTF) [1] defines p2p as: “a way of section three a framework is proposed for classifying available
structuring distributed applications such that the individual and new p2p applications. This framework will be derived
nodes have symmetric roles, rather than being divided into from the answers of question one and two. Section four
clients and servers with quite distinct roles. A key concept for provides a way to use the framework, illustrated by an
p2p systems is therefore to permit any two peers to example. At the end there is a final section for conclusions and
communicate with one another in such a way that either ought identified areas for future work.
to be able to initiate the contact.” II. CURRENTLY AVAILABLE P2P APPLICATIONS
In the past, several taxonomies and frameworks for p2p
applications have been developed; see [2] [3] [4] [5]. The In early 2000 Napster [7] was at its peak with nearly sixty
problem here is that all this research dates from several years million users [4]. At this time the phrase peer to peer came to
ago. In a field of science like p2p networks, which is be associated with systems such as Napster. People thought
experiencing rapid growth, research is quickly outdated. This that p2p computing was really a new paradigm. Experts, who
is why p2p-based VoIP is only barely described in the knew more about distributed systems, knew better; Usenet and
taxonomies listed above and IPTV is not described at all. some email systems used the same decentralization concept
This paper describes a way to classify available and new p2p back in the 1980’s.
applications based on their different characteristics. New Over the last years, the number of services that p2p systems
services in the field of p2p networks, like IPTV, are also taken provide has grown rapidly. Nowadays, p2p networking is also
into account. In this way this paper answers the call from the used in for example IPTV, VoIP and distributed data storage.
Peer-to-Peer Research Group, part of the IRTF, for a new There is however a distinction between p2p systems and
taxonomy on p2p applications [6]. The taxonomy can help distributed systems in general. Grid computing for example
identifying the main characteristics of an application. Based are distributed systems, but not p2p systems, because grids are
often managed at a single location or at multiple ones in a

Authorized licensed use limited to: Istanbul Universitesi-Cerrahpasa. Downloaded on July 16,2024 at 02:20:45 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
978-1-4244-5626-0/09/$26.00 ©2009 IEEE
federated manner [4]. The definition of p2p systems used in network. Another example is that a lot of Gnutella2 (G2)
this paper is: clients also connect to the original Gnutella network.
“Peer-to-peer systems are distributed systems consisting of
B. Content Publishing and Storage Systems
interconnected nodes able to self organize into network
topologies with the purpose of sharing resources such as These systems create a distributed storage medium, where
content, CPU cycles, storage and bandwidth, capable of users are able to publish, store and distribute content in a
adapting to failures and accommodating transient populations secure and persistent manner [5]. In some aspects this looks
of nodes while maintaining acceptable connectivity and similar to p2p file sharing systems received earlier, but there is
performance, without requiring the intermediation or support however a major difference. “Where p2p file sharing systems
of a global centralized server or authority”, from [5]. are most of the time light weight applications that adopt a
Old and recent p2p applications are grouped below by the best-effort approach without addressing security, availability
service they provide. Because of the large number of p2p and persistence, p2p content publishing and storage systems
applications available, only the most popular are listed. focus on security and persistence”, from [5]. Other aspects
these systems frequently feature are incorporated provisions
A. File Sharing for accountability, anonymity and censorship resistance, as
File sharing applications are probably the most popular p2p well as persistent content management (updating, removing
applications available, although in recent years other p2p and version control) facilities. Table 2 contains a list of the
services, like VoIP and IPTV, are catching up on them. The most popular p2p content publishing and storage systems with
most famous file sharing application is probably Napster [7], a brief description of their purpose.
especially because it was shut down in 2001 due to legal
issues. Napster had a number of successors which offered TABLE 2. POPULAR P2P CONTENT PUBLISHING AND STORAGE
more or less the same service but tried to avoid the legal SYSTEMS
issues. P2p application Brief Description
File sharing applications are often part of a network with a Freehaven [25] A system for distributed, anonymous, persistent
number of different applications connecting to it. For example, data storage which is robust against attempts by
BitTorrent [8] is a well known p2p file sharing network and powerful adversaries to find and destroy any stored
data [25].
applications like uTorrent [9], Vuze [10] and BitTornado [11] Freenet [26] A system which lets you publish and obtain
are all connecting to the network. Table 1 contains a list of information on the Internet without fear of
popular p2p file sharing networks and applications running on censorship [26].
them. Groove [27] A collaboration software program that helps teams
work together dynamically and effectively [27].
TABLE 1. P2P FILE SHARING NETWORKS AND APPLICATIONS Mnet [28] A shared virtual space onto which you can put, and
RUNNING ON IT from which you can retrieve, files. (created from
the source code of MojoNation [32]) [28].
P2p network Popular Applications OceanStore [29] An architecture for global scale persistent storage.
Ares Ares Galaxy [12] Scalable, provides security and access control [29].
BitTorrent BitTorrent [8], uTorrent [9], Vuze [10],
BitTornado [11]
These systems or projects are still in ongoing use. In the past
DirectConnect DC++ [13] there have been a number of other projects concerning p2p-
eDonkey20001 eDonkey2000 [14], eMule [15] based content publishing and data storage, but these remained
FastTrack KaZaa [16], Kazaa Lite [17] scientific or are not deployed anymore. Examples of such
Gnutella LimeWire [18], Shareaza [19] projects are Intermemory [30], Mnemosyne [31], MojoNation
Gnutella2 (G2) Morpheus [20], Gnucleus [21], Shareaza [19] [32], PAST [33], Publius [34], SCAN [35] and Tangler [36].
Kad Network aMule [22], eMule [15], MLDonkey [23]
OpenNap Napster [7] C. Voice over IP
WPNP WinMX [24] Something which has become very popular in recent years is
Not all applications connecting to each network are listed, Voice over IP (VoIP). Many ISPs offer VoIP services to let
because some networks have a large amount of applications people call over the internet instead of over the “old” Public
running on it. BitTorrent, for example, has over fifty Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). Many of these VoIP-
applications, called clients, using the network. All these clients networks use standardized protocols like SIP [37], H.323 [38]
have some different properties, but all of them are part of the and IAX [39], but do not run over a peer-to-peer network.
same community using the BitTorrent protocol. There are Recent work from the P2PSIP Workgroup (P2PSIP WG) [6],
several p2p file sharing applications that support multiple file part of the IETF, involved p2p-based VoIP communication
sharing networks. For example eMule originally runs on the based on the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [41]. The main
eDonkey2000 network, but now also connects to the Kad motivation behind p2p-based SIP is to support ad hoc
communication, to simplify the configuration of SIP networks,
to make SIP networks more scalable and to provide services
1
The eDonkey2000 application and its website were shut down on September,
independently of other network components such as DNS
28 2005 due to legal issues. Nevertheless, the eDonkey2000 network is still [42].
available through other clients like eMule [15]

Authorized licensed use limited to: Istanbul Universitesi-Cerrahpasa. Downloaded on July 16,2024 at 02:20:45 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Skype [40] is currently without doubt the most popular VoIP potential of becoming one of the most contributors to traffic
application available. Skype was developed in 2002 by the over the Internet in the near future.
creators of KaZaa [16], it recently reached over 170 million
users, and it accounts for more than 4.4% of total VoIP traffic III. MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF P2P
[43]. Skype also relies on a p2p infrastructure to exchange APPLICATIONS
signaling information in a distributed fashion, with a twofold Some important characteristics of p2p applications are
benefit of making the system both highly scalable and robust scalability, transience, manageability and single point of
[43]. Skype uses a proprietary protocol that is difficult to failure. A network is said to be scalable when it operates
reverse engineer and which unlike SIP, for example, is not efficiently in a large population of participating nodes. A
standardized. The service Skype offers, is not limited to VoIP, transient network is network where nodes connect and
but also includes video communication, file transfer and chat disconnect at a high rate [5]. Manageability of the network
services. Voice calls made by Skype can also be directed includes removing or updating content; maintaining previous
toward the PSTN using SkypeIn/SkypeOut services, in which versions of updated content; managing storage space; and
case a fee is applied [43]. setting bandwidth limits [5]. When a single node can cause the
The target of P2PSIP WG [6] is to develop a peer-to-peer network to malfunction, the node is considered as a single
version of the SIP protocol called P2PSIP [41], which can use point of failure.
any DHT-based peer-to-peer overlay network to locate All these characteristics are to a great extent determined by
resources, services and users in a decentralized way. The what is called, the overlay network. The overlay network
motivation of this work comes from the necessity of having a consists of a network of peer computers (nodes) and
standard for developing Skype-like decentralized multimedia connections (edges) between them. This network is built on
applications [44]. The P2PSIP protocol should re-implement top of, and independently from, the underlying physical
the proxy and registrar functionality of SIP in a distributed computer network (typically IP) [5]. A lot of the
fashion, but should also support other functionalities like file- characteristics of KaZaa [16], for example, are deductable to
sharing. Besides that, it should be compatible with signaling the characteristics of the underlying FastTrack network
protocols other than SIP. because all applications which are running on the same
Based on the requirements of the P2PSIP protocol the P2PSIP overlay network have more or less the same properties. So, it
WG is also working on another draft called the RELOAD is sensible to first look at the characteristics of the overlay
protocol [45]. This protocol is binary based instead of the networks and then to the characteristics of the applications of
character based P2PSIP protocol, which makes it more light the networks. The two main characteristics of an overlay
weighted. The RELOAD protocol also offers the possibility of network are structure and centralization. Both will be
implementing TLS or DTLS secure connection. discussed below. Scalability and ability to handle transient
node populations are largely dependent on the structure of the
D. IPTV
overlay network. The centralization of the network determines
One of the newest services offered by p2p networking is whether the network is manageable and if it has a single point
IPTV. Although the first p2p-based IPTV systems have only of failure.
been recently deployed, the service is gaining popularity.
Compared to client/server solutions, the main advantage of A. Structure of the Overlay Network
p2p streaming for ISPs is an increased cost-effectiveness, The structure of the overlay network determines the type of
since the network capacity costs are shared among the routing algorithm used. The overlay network can be either
participating peers. Another advantage is self-scalability, since structured or unstructured.
the more peers take part of the network, the more resources Unstructured p2p networks, also called 1st generation
are available for exchanging the media data [46]. P2p IPTV networks, are formed when the overlay links are established
offers two different services, namely Video on Demand arbitrarily. The placement of content is completely unrelated
(VOD) and Real Time (RT) streaming. Most p2p IPTV to the overlay topology. The routing is mainly based on
applications only offer the first service. The p2p streaming broadcasting and the search is based on keywords. Some
concept has now lead to a number of trial p2p IPTV systems routing algorithms used in unstructured networks are blind
such as PPlive [47], PPStream [48], Joost [49] and Sopcast flooding, random walks, probabilistic flooding, breadth first
[50]. There is now clear commercial interest in these new flooding (used in Gnutella v0.4.), dept-first search (used in
technologies which are revolutionizing the online broadcasting Freenet [26]) and JXTA search. This makes unstructured
arena. Despite the numerous advantages of p2p streaming in networks operate effectively in highly transient node
general and p2p IPTV in particular, their characteristics in populations, which can be considered as a major advantage
terms of signaling overheads and network efficiency are not [5]. Because the routing is mainly based on broadcasting,
well known. Unfortunately, the majority of above described users have to accept a best effort search and the scalability
systems are proprietary, and thus their protocols, architectures (number of peers) of the network is limited. An approach to
and algorithms are inaccessible [51]. Some of the IPTV make unstructured networks more scalable is the use of a
applications are only regionally deployed, like PPlive and Time To Live (TTL) field for queries, which can reduce the
PPStream which are only available in China. According to network load. Of course, this reduces the chances for
[46], Joost is a p2p video streaming application with the successful query hits [5]. Examples of unstructured systems

Authorized licensed use limited to: Istanbul Universitesi-Cerrahpasa. Downloaded on July 16,2024 at 02:20:45 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
are Napster [7], Publius [34], Gnutella v0.4, FastTrack and IPTV applications using this architecture are GNuStream [64],
Freehaven [25]. PPLive [47], Coolstreaming [65], SopCast [50] and Joost [49].
Structured p2p networks, also called 2nd generation networks, Due to the fact that each node relies on multiple peers to
employ a globally consistent protocol to ensure that any node retrieve content, these mesh-based systems offer good
can efficiently route a search to some peer that has the desired resilience to node failures [62].
file, even if the file is extremely rare [5]. Structured networks Distributed p2p networks, also called pure p2p networks, are
mainly use deterministic search based on Distributed Hash completely decentralized. In these networks there is no central
Tables (DHT). Often structured p2p networks are built on top coordination of activities, which makes them difficult to
of an existing routing algorithm, like PRR [52], Pastry [53], manage, but also excludes the single point of failure. Users
Tapestry [54], Kademlia [55], Chord [56] or CAN [57]. All communicate directly to each other through a software
these routing algorithms use DHTs. There are however routing application that acts both as a client a server. Pure p2p
algorithms in structured p2p networks, which are not based on networks are not scalable, because the Time To Live (TTL)
DHTs, but these are rare. An example of such a routing field of queries effectively segments the network into sub-
algorithm is Mercury [58], which organizes nodes in a circular networks [5]. Because of this, these networks are not widely
overlay and places data contiguously on this ring [3]. used. Examples of distributed p2p networks are Gnutella v0.4,
Structured networks have a number of advantages over Freehaven [25], Freenet [26], PAST [33] and OceanStore [29].
unstructured networks. The most important is that they are Hybrid p2p networks, also called partially centralized
more scalable, because they do not use broadcasting. Besides networks, are similar to distributed p2p networks, but some
that structured networks are efficient in searching for rare nodes have a more important role in the network. These super-
data. Unlike unstructured networks, structured networks are nodes act as local indexes for files shared by local peers, often
not efficient in highly transient node populations, because the called leaf-nodes (see Fig. 1).
management costs of the DHTs are high [5]. Examples of p2p
systems with a structured architecture are: OceanStore [29],
Mnemosyne [31], Scan [35], PAST [33] and Freenet [26].
B. Centralization of the Overlay Network
Another aspect of the overlay network is centralization. The
centralization of a p2p network can be expressed in terms of
the location of the index. Index can be described as a
collection of pointers to places where information can be
found [4]. The index of a p2p network can be either
centralized, distributed or hybrid. Each of these types is
discussed below.
Centralized p2p networks have a single indexing server that
keeps references to data on many peers in the network.
Examples of networks using a centralized index are Napster Figure. 1. A hybrid p2p network
[7], Publius [34] and BitTorrent [8]. The centralized indexing
In these networks there is a hierarchical structure, where the
servers, which are often websites, are referred to as trackers.
super-nodes become heavily loaded and the leaf-nodes are
Famous trackers for the BitTorrent network are ThePirateBay
lightly loaded. The network structure of hybrid networks is a
[59] and Mininova [60]. Centralized networks are easy to
combination of structured and unstructured. The
implement, provide quick and efficient search and are simple
communication between super-nodes and leaf-nodes is still
to manage. Major disadvantages are the single point of failure
unstructured by means of query flooding, but the
(the centralized servers) and the fact that these networks are
interconnection of super-nodes is structured. In this way these
vulnerable to censorship and legal surveillance.
networks are more scalable than distributed networks, because
Most of the recently deployed p2p IPTV applications also
the amount of query flooding is reduced [5]. In comparison to
adopt a centralized architecture, which is similar to the one in
distributed networks discovery times are lowered because of
the BitTorrent network [8]. In this architecture data is divided
the hierarchical structure. A disadvantage of these hybrid
into chucks in such a way which allows a peer to receive
networks is that the dependability of the system is sensitive to
portions of the stream from different peers and assemble them
the query success of the super-peers, which form the single
locally [61]. When a new node registers to the system it
points of failure. Nowadays a lot of p2p networks implement
receives the addresses of a number of trackers. A tracker is a
this hybrid structure, especially file sharing networks.
central node that tracks the nodes that are downloading or
Examples of file sharing networks using a hybrid architecture
have downloaded a file. When the node contacts the peers
are Gnutella v0.6, FastTrack and DirectConnect.
advertised by the tracker, the node receives from each of them
Skype [40] is also an example of a hybrid network. This is not
a buffer map, that is, a map of the chunks of data they own
surprising when considering that Skype is based on the
and are able to share. At this point, based on various heuristics
FastTrack network, which is also hybrid. Skype distinguishes
(e.g. bandwidth, delay), the node selects a subset of those
normal users (leaf-nodes) and super-nodes. The super nodes
peers and requests chunks from them [62]. Examples of p2p

Authorized licensed use limited to: Istanbul Universitesi-Cerrahpasa. Downloaded on July 16,2024 at 02:20:45 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
are selected among peers with large computational power and an important issue. This is especially the case for content
good connectivity (considering bandwidth, uptime and publishing and storage systems, which are targeted towards
absence of firewalls) [43]. Skype uses the super-nodes for creating a distributed storage medium in-and through-which
maintaining presence information of their users and locating users will be able to publish, store and distribute content in a
other users by communicating with other super-nodes. In this secure and persistent manner [66]. They often aim to
way the Skype super-nodes are similar to the SIP registrar, incorporate provisions for accountability, anonymity and
proxy and presence server [63]. The communication between censorship resistance, as well as persistent content
the super-nodes is based on DHT and the communication management (updating, removing, version control) facilities
between users and super-nodes is based on some sort of [66]. Also for real time services like VoIP and IPTV, security
flooding, similar to the FastTrack architecture [63]. Skype’s is an important aspect. To lower the risks of the security
user information (e.g. contact lists, status and preferences) is attacks listed above, p2p networks can implement the
completely distributed among nodes [63]. following security services:
• Authentication: The process of determining whether or
not some entity is in fact who or what that entity declares
itself to be and not a malicious node with several
identities (Sybil attacks) [5].
• Authorization: The process of giving an authenticated
entity permission to do some action or access some
resource [66]. In a p2p application, a peer might be
authenticated to access some subset of the resources on
another peer.
• Access control: Protects against unauthorized use of the
network or its resources. This can be done by the use of
signed certificates [5].
• Encryption: various cryptographic algorithms and
Figure. 2. example of P2PSIP network using a Chord overlay. The peers (e.g.
the computers and laptops) form the overlay and the users (e.g. handheld
protocols are employed to provide security for content
devices) are connected to the peers, from [44] published and stored in and routed through the p2p
networks [5].
P2PSIP shows many similarities with Skype. P2PSIP also uses • Anonymity: there are several mechanisms to provide
a hybrid architecture in which it differentiates super-nodes, either anonymity to the author of the content; to the node
called peers, and leaf-nodes, called clients. The peers in storing the content; to the content itself and to the queries
P2PSIP are designed to override the SIP proxy and registrar retrieving the content.
functionality [44]. Together they form the active participants • Accountability/Deniability: mechanisms for a node
in the overlay network. This overlay network can be any being accountable for the data stored or transferred by the
DHT-based infrastructure, like Kademlia [55], CAN [57] or node. One way to deny accountability is to break the
Chord [56]. The clients are nodes that use the resources content into blocks and store them at different nodes.
offered by the peers, but they do not participate in network
maintenance. This role is reserved to and should be used only It has been proven to be practically impossible to provide
by devices with very limited capabilities, such as the handheld these security services in a fully distributed network. Because
devices [44]. In this way the number of clients is kept to a of that, a lot of p2p networks use central elements to provide
minimum and the number of peers participating in the DHT security related tasks. Skype [40] for example use central
overlay remains as high as possible. An example of a P2PSIP login servers for authentication [42]. Because most p2p
network is shown in Fig. 2. applications have a proprietary protocol it is difficult to say
what security measures they implement. At the same time, the
C. Security proprietary protocol makes it more difficult to build malicious
A major drawback for p2p networks is their lack of security. software that can communicate with it.
The decentralization comes at a cost of less control over what D. Standardization
is happening in the network. P2p networks lack a central
control element, what makes them vulnerable to a wide range Up until now there are few p2p networks which use
of attacks [42]. A number of common attacks on p2p networks standardized protocols. Most of the p2p file sharing networks
is: Denial of Service (DoS) attacks; Eavesdropping; Eclipse and content publishing and storage systems have their own
attack; Forging messages; Free riders (defection attacks); protocol. A lot of these applications implements a DHT
Impersonation; Insertion of viruses to carried data; Invalid overlay network, like Chord [56], CAN [57] or Pastry [53].
lookups; Filtering; Identity attacks; Malware in the peer-to- None of these overlay networks is however considered as a
peer network software itself; Partition attacks; Propagating standard.
wrong routing tables; Spamming and Sybil attacks. Because of After standardizing the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [37]
the difficulty to create safe p2p networks, security has become for VoIP, the P2PSIP WG is now looking to develop a p2p-
based VoIP communication protocol based on SIP. The

Authorized licensed use limited to: Istanbul Universitesi-Cerrahpasa. Downloaded on July 16,2024 at 02:20:45 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
P2PSIP WG currently has two drafts describing the P2PSIP implement multiple security mechanisms. So this is the only
[41] and the RELOAD [45] protocol. Exactly when one of property that possibly has multiple values.
these protocols will be standardized is not known. The first The framework shown in Fig. 3 does not list all properties of
p2p-based IPTV applications have only recently been p2p applications. For example, pay mechanisms in p2p
deployed, so there are currently no standardized protocols. applications are not discussed. Many properties though are
implied by the overlay network, as described in section two.
E. Deployment
The main properties of the overlay network are centralization
Not every application that has been developed is actually of the index and structure of the network. This makes them
deployed. A lot of applications are scientific projects, which important properties for classifying a p2p application. Both of
only run in test environments, but are never used in public. these properties are taken into account in the framework.
Especially with distributed storage & content publishing
systems there are a lot of systems, like Intermemory [30] and
Publius [34], which remain scientific projects. Also a lot of
p2p TV applications are (yet) underutilized. The reason is that
researchers are still searching for suitable architectures and
protocols. Besides that p2p-based TV is a new service, so the
impact on the market is not yet known.
IV. TAXONOMY BASED ON THE P2P
CHARACTERISTICS
After analyzing what p2p applications are available and what
their main characteristics are, it is now time to put them in
some sort of framework. This framework, shown in Fig. 3,
will help classifying p2p applications in relation to other p2p
applications by distinguishing them by their main properties.
What follows is a brief explanation of the proposed framework
The framework has a tree-based structure, where each level
represents a property of a p2p application. The tree contains
seven levels:
0. P2p application (the root of the tree)
1. Main type of service
2. Centralization of the index
3. Structure of the network
4. Deployment
5. Standardization
6. Security mechanisms used
The starting point is always the root (level zero). From the
root a path downwards will be formed by making choices at
each level of the tree. Because of space limitations not the
entire tree is drawn; redundant braches are left out. For
example, looking at level one there are four types of services
to choose from. Each of these types has the same three
possibilities for level two (type of centralization). So at level
two there are four identical groups of three possible values.
The groups can be identified by the dotted line around it.
Because the properties below level two are exactly the same
for each group, the remainder of the three has been drawn for
only one group. In Fig. 3, this was done for the group below
VoIP. In level three, four and five the same grouping structure
is used to save space. For all of these levels, the groups from
which the remainder is not drawn continue in the same way as
the drawn group. At each level of the framework a unique
choice has to be made. This means that for each property that
the framework discusses, all p2p applications have a unique
value. In this way every p2p application will form a single Figure. 3: Taxonomy framework. The highlighted path are the components of
path in the tree. There is however one exception: namely level the application Skype [40]
six, “security mechanisms used”. A p2p application can

Authorized licensed use limited to: Istanbul Universitesi-Cerrahpasa. Downloaded on July 16,2024 at 02:20:45 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 V. CATEGORIZING P2P APPLICATIONS IN THE network of p2p applications. The introduced framework
TAXONOMY provides an accurate analysis of both available overlay
In order to explain how this framework can be applied, its use networks and their properties.
will be discussed by the popular p2p-based VoIP application In order to make the framework more complete a number of
Skype [40]. other properties have to be added to the framework.
Performance issues, such as latency and congestion control,
Skype are not analyzed in this paper, because they require a
• Main type of service: The service offered by Skype is quantitative comparison. This paper is based on a literature
not limited to VoIP, but also includes video study and no quantitative measurements were done. Another
communication, file transfer and chat services. Skype’s aspect which requires future work is security. This paper
main service however remains VoIP. provided a clear overview of the possible attacks on p2p
• Centralization of the index: Skype uses a hybrid networks and security mechanisms available. However, it is
architecture, based on the FastTrack network. Skype difficult to assess what security mechanisms are actually used,
distinguishes super-nodes and leaf-nodes. since most of the applications use proprietary protocols. The
• Structure of the network: The communication between implementation of various payment mechanisms is also an
super-nodes is structured, based on DHT. The issue that requires further research. Payment mechanisms are
communication between leaf-nodes and super-nodes is an interesting property of p2p applications and could be a
unstructured based on some sort of flooding, similar to useful addition to the framework.
FastTrack.
• Deployment: Skype is one of the most popular and REFERENCES
widely deployed VoIP applications. [1] Internet Research Task Force - Peer-to-Peer Research Group. [Online].
Available: http://www.irtf.org/charter?gtype=rg&group=p2prg (visited
• Standardization: Skype uses a proprietary protocol. 2009, March 28)
• Security mechanisms used: Skype is based on a [2] D. Bricklin (2001, June) “A Taxonomy of Computer Systems and
proprietary protocol, what makes it difficult to judge what Different Topologies: Standalone to P2P”. [Online]. Available:
http://www.bricklin.com/p2ptaxonomy.htm (visited: 2009, February 18).
security mechanisms it uses. It is known however that
[3] R. Ranjan, A. Harwood and R. Buyya. "Peer-to-peer-based resource
Skype uses a central server for authentication and uses discovery in global grids: a tutorial," Communications Surveys &
some sort of encryption [42]. Tutorials, IEEE , vol.10, no.2, pp.6-33, Second Quarter 2008.
[4] J. Risson and T. Moors. “Survey of Research towards Robust Peer-to-
Table 3 summarizes the properties of Skype discussed above. Peer Networks: search methods” Computer Networks, vol. 50, pp. 3485-
Fig. 3, shows how Skype fits in the taxonomy framework. The 3521, 2006.
properties of Skype form the highlighted path in the tree. [5] S. Androutsellis-Theotokis and D. Spinellis. “A survey of peer-to-peer
content distribution technologies”. ACM Comput. Surv. 36, 4 (Dec.
2004), 335-371
TABLE 3: PROPERTIES OF SKYPE [6] IRTF, Peer-to-Peer Research Group (P2PRG) Home Page and Charter.
[Online]. Available:
Skype
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/PeerToPeerResearchGroup
Main type of service VOIP (visited: 2009, March 28)
Centralization of the index Hybrid [7] Napster. [Online]. Available: http://free.napster.com/ (visited: 2009,
Structure of the network Structured and Unstructured May 27)
Standardization Proprietary [8] BitTorrent. [Online]. Available: http://www.bittorrent.com/ (visited:
Deployment Deployed 2009, May 27)
Security mechanisms used Authentication control, Encryption. [9] uTorrent [Online]. Available: http://www.utorrent.com/ (visited: 2009,
Rest is unknown May 27)
[10] Vuze. [Online]. Available: http://www.azureus.com/ (visited: 2009, May
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK 27)
[11] BitTornado. [Online]. Available: http://www.bittornado.com/ (visited:
In this paper a framework for classifying p2p applications has 2009, May 27)
been presented. The framework is capable of classifying both [12] AresGalaxy. [Online]. Available: http://aresgalaxy.sourceforge.net/
(visited: 2009, May 27)
old and recent p2p applications. The classification is based on [13] DC++. [Online]. Available: http://dcplusplus.sourceforge.net/ (visited:
(1) properties of the overlay network, (2) the service the 2009, May 27)
application offers and (3) the security mechanisms it provides. [14] eDonkey2000. [Online]. Available: http://www.edonkey2000.com/
Standardization and deployment have also been taken into (visited: 2009, May 27)
[15] eMule. [Online]. Available: http://www.emule-project.net/ (visited:
account. The taxonomy framework can help classifying p2p 2009, May 27)
applications by identifying the most important characteristics [16] KaZaa. [Online]. Available: http://www.kazaa.com/ (visited: 2009, May
of the application. After classifying an application the 27)
hierarchical framework can also be used for indentifying sub- [17] Kazaa Lite. [Online]. Available: http://www.kazaa-lite-info.nl/index.php
(visited: 2009, May 27)
and super classes of the application. [18] Limewire. [Online]. Available: http://www.limewire.com/ (visited:
Not all properties of p2p applications are discussed in the 2009, May 27)
framework. However, the framework still provides enough [19] Shareaza. [Online]. Available: http://www.shareaza.com/ (visited: 2009,
properties to distinguish most of the available p2p May 27)
[20] B. Mitchell. (2009, January). Morpheus P2P Application - Free
applications. In this paper, attention is given to the overlay Downloads. About.com. [Online]. Available:

Authorized licensed use limited to: Istanbul Universitesi-Cerrahpasa. Downloaded on July 16,2024 at 02:20:45 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 http://compnetworking.about.com/od/p2ppeertopeer/qt/morpheusp2papp [45] C. Jennings, B. Lowekamp, E. Rescorla, S. Baset, H. Schulzrinne.
.htm (visited: 2009, May 27) Resource location and discovery (reload), Internet Draft draft-ietfp2psip-
[21] Gnucleus. [Online]. Available: http://www.gnucleus.com/Gnucleus/ reload-00.txt, July 2008.
(visited: 2009, May 27) [46] J. Moreira, R. Antonello, S. Fernandes, C. Kamienski and D. Sadok. "A
[22] aMule. [Online]. Available: http://www.amule.org/ (visited: 2009, May step towards understanding Joost IPTV," Network Operations and
27) Management Symposium, 2008. NOMS 2008. IEEE , vol., no., pp.911-
[23] MLDonkey. [Online]. Available: http://mldonkey.sourceforge.net/ 914, 7-11 April 2008.
(visited: 2009, May 27) [47] PPlive. [Online]. Available: http://www.pplive.com/ (visited: 2009, May
[24] B. Mitchell. (2008, April). What Happened to the WinMX 27)
P2P Network? About.com. [Online]. Available: [48] PPStream. [Online]. Available: http://www.ppstream.com/ (visited:
http://compnetworking.about.com/od/winmx/f/winmxstatus.htm (visited: 2009, May 27)
2009, May 27) [49] Joost. [Online]. Available: http://www.joost.com/ (visited: 2009, May
[25] Freehaven. [Online]. Available: http://www.freehaven.net (visited: 2009, 27)
May 27) [50] Sopcast. [Online]. Available: http://www.sopcast.com/ (visited: 2009,
[26] Freenet. [Online]. Available: http://freenetproject.org/whatis.html May 27)
(visited: 2009, May 27) [51] D. Ciullo, M. Mellia, M. Meo and E. Leonardi. "Understanding P2P-TV
[27] Microsoft Groove. [Online]. Available: http://office.microsoft.com/en- Systems Through Real Measurements," Global Telecommunications
s/groove/HA101656331033.aspx (visited: 2009, May 27) Conference, 2008. IEEE GLOBECOM 2008. IEEE , vol., no., pp.1-6,
[28] Mnet. Intro. [Online]. Available: http://mnetproject.org/intro (visited: Nov. 30 2008-Dec. 4 2008.
2009, May 27) [52] X. Li and C.G. Plaxton. 2002. On name resolution in peer-to-peer
[29] The OceanStore Project. [Online]. Available: networks. In Proceedings of the Second ACM international Workshop
http://oceanstore.cs.berkeley.edu/info/overview.html (visited: 2009, May on Principles of Mobile Computing (Toulouse, France, October 30 - 31,
27) 2002). POMC '02. ACM, New York, NY, 82-89. DOI=
[30] Y. Chen, J. Edler, A. Goldberg, A. Gottlieb, S. Sobti and P. Yianilos. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/584490.584507
1999. A prototype implementation of archival Intermemory. In [53] Pastry. [Online]. Available: http://freepastry.org/ (visited: 2009, May 27)
Proceedings of the Fourth ACM Conference on Digital Libraries [54] Tapestry. [Online]. Available:
(Berkeley, California, United States, August 11 - 14, 1999). DL '99. http://current.cs.ucsb.edu/projects/chimera/ (visited: 2009, May 27)
ACM, New York, NY, 28-37. DOI= [55] Kademlia: a design specification. [Online]. Available:
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/313238.313249 http://xlattice.sourceforge.net/components/protocol/kademlia/specs.html
[31] Mnemosyne Project. [Online]. Available: http://www.mnemosyne- (visited: 2009, May 27)
proj.org/ (visited: 2009, May 27) [56] Chord. [Online]. Available: http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/chord/ (visited:
[32] MojoNation. [Online]. Available: 2009, May 27)
http://sourceforge.net/projects/mojonation (visited: 2009, May 27) [57] S. Ratnasamy, P. Francis, M. Handley, R. Karp and S. Schenker. 2001.
[33] PAST: A large-scale, peer-to-peer archival storage facility. [Online]. A scalable content-addressable network. In Proceedings of the 2001
Available: http://freepastry.org/PAST/default.htm (visited: 2009, May Conference on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols
27) For Computer Communications (San Diego, California, United States).
[34] Publius Censorship Resistant Publishing System. [Online]. Available: SIGCOMM '01. ACM, New York, NY, 161-172. DOI=
http://cs1.cs.nyu.edu/~waldman/publius/ (visited: 2009, May 27) http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/383059.383072
[35] Y. Chen, Y.H. Katz and J.D. Kubiatowicz. “SCAN: A Dynamic, [58] A.R. Bharambe, M. Agrawal and S. Seshan. 2004. Mercury: supporting
Scalable, and Efficient Content Distribution Network” (2002). [Online]. scalable multi-attribute range queries. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun.
Available: Rev. 34, 4 (Aug. 2004), 353-366. DOI=
http://oceanstore.cs.berkeley.edu/publications/papers/pdf/pervasive_dtre http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1030194.1015507
e.pdf (visited: 2009, May 27) [59] ThePirateBay. [Online]. Available: http://thepiratebay.org/ (visited:
[36] M. Waldman and D. Mazières. 2001. Tangler: a censorship-resistant 2009, May 27)
publishing system based on document entanglements. In Proceedings of [60] Mininova. [Online]. Available: http://www.mininova.org/ (visited: 2009,
the 8th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security May 27)
(Philadelphia, PA, USA, November 05 - 08, 2001). P. Samarati, Ed. [61] M. Alhaisoni and A. Liotta. “Characterization of signaling and traffic in
CCS '01. ACM, New York, NY, 126-135. DOI= Joost” (2009) Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications, 2 (1), pp. 75-
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/501983.502002 83.
[37] Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). [Online]. Available: [62] A. Sentinelli, G. Marfia, M. Gerla, L. Kleinrock and S. Tewari. "Will
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/sip/ (visited: 2009, May 27) IPTV ride the peer-to-peer stream? [Peer-to-Peer Multimedia
[38] H.323. [Online]. Available: http://www.h323.org/ (visited: 2009, May Streaming]," Communications Magazine, IEEE, vol.45, no.6, pp.86-92,
27) June 2007.
[39] IAX: Inter-Asterisk eXchange Version 2. [Online]. Available: [63] K. Singh and H. Schulzrinne. 2005. Peer-to-peer internet telephony
http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc5456.txt (visited: 2009, May 27) using SIP. In Proceedings of the international Workshop on Network
[40] Skype. [Online]. Available: http://www.skype.com/ (visited: 2009, May and Operating Systems Support For Digital Audio and Video
27) (Stevenson, Washington, USA, June 13 - 14, 2005). NOSSDAV '05.
[41] D. Bryan, P. Matthews, E. Shim, D. Willis. Concepts and terminology ACM, New York, NY, 63-68. DOI=
for peer to peer sip, Internet Draft draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-02.txt, July http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1065983.1065999
2008. [64] J. Xuxian, D. Yu, X. Dongyan and B. Bhargava. "GnuStream: a P2P
[42] A. Fessi, H. Niedermayer, H. Kinkelin and G. Carle. 2007. A media streaming system prototype," Multimedia and Expo, 2003. ICME
cooperative SIP infrastructure for highly reliable telecommunication '03. Proceedings. 2003 International Conference on, vol.2, no., pp. II-
services. In Proceedings of the 1st international Conference on 325-8 vol.2, 6-9 July 2003.
Principles, Systems and Applications of IP Telecommunications (New [65] CoolStreaming. [Online]. Available: http://www.coolstreaming.us/
York City, New York, July 19 - 20, 2007). IPTComm '07. ACM, New (visited: 2009, May 27)
York, NY, 29-38. DOI= http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1326304.1326310 [66] A.A. Economides and A.A. Pomportsis. 2005. “Security in p2p
[43] D. Rossi, M. Mellia and M. Meo. “Understanding Skype signaling”. networks”. [Online]. Available:
(2009) Computer Networks, 53 (2), pp. 130-140. conta.uom.gr/conta/ekpaideysh/metaptyxiaka/technologies_diktywn/erg
[44] I. Martinez-Yelmo, A. Bikfalvi, R. Cuevas, C. Guerrero and J. Garcia. asies/2006/security%20in%20P2P%20networks.pdf
“H-P2PSIP: Interconnection of P2PSIP domains for global multimedia
services based on a hierarchical DHT overlay network” (2009)
Computer Networks, 53 (4), pp. 556-568.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Istanbul Universitesi-Cerrahpasa. Downloaded on July 16,2024 at 02:20:45 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.