Posts categorized "Architecture"

Video and Slides Now Available For My AstriCon 2015 Keynote: Open Source and The Global Disruption of Telecom

If you're interested in what I said last month at AstriCon 2015 in my keynote on "Open Source And The Global Disruption of Telecom: What Choices Will We Make?", the video and slides are both available.

As I wrote about previously, the context for this discussion was to talk about the changes that are happening all around us in terms of the ways in which we communicate. Here was the abstract:

There is a battle raging for the global future of telecommunications and the Internet. Taking place in networks, board rooms and legislatures, the battle will determine how we all communicate and what opportunities will exist. Will telecom support innovation? Will it be accessible to all? Will it give us the level of security and privacy we need to have the open, trusted Internet? Or will it be restricted and limited by corporate or government gatekeepers?

The rise of voice-over-IP has fundamentally disrupted the massive global telecommunications industry, infrastructure and policies. Open source software such as Asterisk has been a huge driver of that disruption and innovation.. but now what? What role do platforms such as Asterisk play in this space? And what can be their role in a telecom infrastructure that is now mobile, increasingly embedded (Internet of Things) and more and more using proprietary walled gardens of communication?

How well I delivered on that will be up to you to decide... but I felt good about how it all came out and received many great comments and feedback throughout the rest of the event and afterwards. And, as a speaker I could see from the crowd (about 500-ish people) that they were NOT looking down into their smartphones or laptops... which is always a good sign! ;-)

A key point of what I aimed to do was to bring people up to a higher level to think about how their own actions fit into the broader context of what is happening in the world today.

It was fun to do! And I loved all the questions I was getting after that. My goal was to make people think... and it seemed that at least for some I did.

My part of the video starts after 15 minutes of introductory items (this was the opening of the event), so if you watch in the embedded video below you'll need to move forward to the 15:00 mark. You can also follow this direct link to the start of my segment with an introduction to me from Mark Spencer, the creator of Asterisk.

(And yes, this was the first time I had ever given a presentation wearing a ponytail in the long hair experiment I've been trying this year... I'm still not 100% sure I'm going to keep this style. This may be the first and only presentation you see with me like this.)

Unfortunately, the video only shows me talking on stage and doesn't show the slides I was using... so you don't understand what I'm talking about when I reference the slides.

I've posted the slides to my SlideShare account but as you'll see without the video or audio they aren't of much value. This was a wonderful opportunity for me to present in the very minimalist style I prefer where I only use images or a few words - and I thoroughly enjoyed doing so.

However, syncing the slides to the video is not something you'll probably find easy. At some point perhaps I'll create another video showing both my speaking and the slides... but I don't know that it will happen anytime soon.

Meanwhile, here they are...

Some of the links I reference in the presentation include (in the order of their appearance):

If you enjoyed this presentation and would like to have me potentially speak at your event, please do contact me. I've been speaking for many years and very much enjoy giving these kind of presentations at all types of events.

Firechat Enables Private Off-The-Internet (P2P) Messaging Using Mobile Phones

Firechat mesh network

There was a fascinating article posted on Medium this week by the CTO of messaging app Firechat:

In the text he outlines how they do decentralized "off-the-grid" private messaging using an ad hoc mesh network established between users of the Firechat app. It sounds like the app instances join together into some kind of peer-to-peer (P2P) network and then do normal "store-and-forward" messaging.

Of note, the apps do NOT need an Internet connection, or even a cellular network connection - instead they can use the Bluetooth and WiFi radios in the mobile phones to create a private mesh network and connect to other users of the Firechat app.

Naturally, having spent some time exploring P2P networks back when I was playing around with P2P SIP and distributed hash tables (DHTs) and other technologies, I immediately jump into the techie questions:

  • How are they routing messages from one user to another?
  • How is the "directory" of users in P2P mesh maintained?
  • What addresses are they using for the communication? Is this still happening over IP addresses? Or are they using some other kind of addressing?
  • How do users join and leave the mesh network?
  • How do user get authorized to join the private mesh? (Or is it just open to all?)
  • How secure is the communication between the parties?
  • Is the message encrypted or private in any way? Or is it just plain text?
  • How well do smartphone batteries hold up if multiple radios are being used? What is the power impact of joining into a mesh network like this?

None of that is covered in this article, of course... this piece is more about the theory of how this can work given a particular density of users. It introduces the phrase "percolation threshold" and provides some background and research into how these kind of networks can be created.

I've always been fascinated by P2P networks like this sounds to be. The beauty of the Internet... the "Internet Way", so to speak... has been to support distributed and decentralized architectures.

If you think about mail or web servers, they are (or at least were) massively distributed. Anyone could set up a mail or web server - and millions upon millions of them bloomed. While we've certainly seen a great amount of centralization due to market dominance (ex. Gmail), the architecture still is distributed / decentralized.

Except... of course, the directory is still centralized. Mail and web servers rely on the central directory of DNS to resolve domain names into IP addresses so that connections can occur. Most other applications rely on DNS for this as well.

Hence my curiousity about how Firechat is handling the directory and routing issues.

I'm also intrigued by how the article hints at integrating Internet-connected users into the P2P mesh. So you really have a hybrid network that is part P2P and part connected out to cloud-based servers.

(And all of this brings me back to those early days of Skype 8-10 years ago when so many of us were captivated by the P2P mechanisms they created... most all of which is now gone in the post-Microsoft-acquisition as Skype has moved from P2P to server/cloud-based - with one big reason being given that mobile devices apparently had speed and battery life issues participating in true P2P networks.)

A key challenge Firechat faces, of course, is the "directory dilemma" of building up the quantity of users where P2P mesh networks like this can happen. This is the same dilemma facing basically all over-the-top (OTT) messaging apps. "Percolation theory" requires a certain user density for a mesh like this to work.

That will be their struggle.

And in some urban areas I can see this working quite well. Perhaps not so much out in the woods of New Hampshire where I live!

But I wish them well with this. I love to see new explorations of potential new architectures for communication. And I can certainly see instances when ad hoc, distributed/decentralized P2P meshes like these could be quite useful.

And I'm definitely looking forward to some more technical articles that dive down into some of these questions.... I do hope they'll write more soon!

Photo credit: Stanislav Shalunov's article about Firechat

Watch Live TODAY (Sept 19) - CITI State of Telecom 2014

Citi logoWhat is the future of telecommunications and the Internet? As more entertainment moves to being over the Internet, what are the implications for the media and for the technology?

Today, September 19, 2014, there is an interesting set of presentations happening at the Columbia Club in New York City, organized by the Columbia (University) Institute for Tele-Information (CITI) called the "CITI State of Telecom 2014". Subtitled, "From the Internet of Science to The Internet of Next Generation Entertainment Implications for Content, Technology and Industry Consolidation", the session description states:

The goal of the early Internet was to connect research institutions. Yet today 71% of all Internet traffic consists of video, games, and music, and that number is growing. This transition raises issues for media content, technology, industry consolidation, business strategy, and regulatory policy. Media companies, academics, policy makers, and technologists must think ahead.

You can watch it all live at:

The sessions are being recorded, too, and are available at that address.

The session agenda and list of all the speakers is available on the CITI event page. The quick summary is:

  • 9:00am Welcome and Introduction of Topic
  • 9:15am Session 1- Technology and business drivers of the transformation of the Internet
  • 10:25am Session 2- Emerging business, marketing, and transaction models for Next Generation Video (NGV)
  • 11:35am Coffee Break
  • 11:50am Session 3- Public Interest Dimensions in Next-Generation Video and Networks
  • 12:50pm Lunch
  • 1:50pm Session 4 - Consolidation in the network platform industry: drivers and impacts
  • 3:00pm Coffee Break
  • 3:10pm Session 5 - New TV and (video) OTT issues for telecom and media policy
  • 4:20pm Session 6 - Defining the future: initiatives to lead the next generation of internet video
  • 5:30 Closing remarks and reception

The sessions began 3.5 hours ago at 9:00am US Eastern and will continue for another 5 hours. I've learned a good bit from a number of the sessions - and am listening right now to the discussion around the challenges of getting Internet infrastructure deployed in rural areas of the USA.

Great sessions to listen to!

If you found this post interesting or useful, please consider either:

Hypervoice - The Fundamental Flaw In The Proposal

MartingeddesI am a huge fan of Martin Geddes, but he and I disagree fundamentally on one key part of what he is now calling "hypervoice".
NOTE: Today's VUC call at 12noon US Eastern will be with Martin discussing his ideas. If you'd like to weigh in on the issue, please join the call. (Unfortunately, I'll be waiting to board a plane home from Mumbai and can't make it... hence this blog post.)

To back up a bit, Martin has always been one of the "big thinkers" in realm of VoIP and telephony/telecom. Way back in mid-2000s when a number of us all started writing about VoIP, Martin's Telepocalypse blog was brilliant. He was always thinking about the "big picture" and drawing connections where they were not already apparent. His work with "Telco 2.0" was excellent and it was no surprise when he went to work for BT looking at their strategy. Now that he is back out on his own as a consultant, I'm a subscriber to his "Future of Communications" email newsletter (subscribe on the sidebar to his site) and enjoy reading his frequent issues.

Recently he gave a closing keynote presentation at the Metaswitch Forum titled "A presentation about Hypervoice" that is available via Slideshare or PDF.

The presentation itself is very well done. In typical Martin style it nicely lays out the history of both telecom and the web and brings them together to talk about what comes next.

I actually agree with almost all of what Martin writes. Much of what he talks about as "hypervoice" I see already happening in so many ways.

But here is where we fundamentally disagree... this slide early on:


That includes the text:

"However, the Internet cannot and never will carry society's real-time communications needs. It is fundamentally unsuited to the job."

Martin's argument, which he has made multiple times before, including in a comment he wrote in response to my post about how WebRTC will disrupt real-time communications, is that the Internet as it exists today cannot provide the level of service that is truly needed for real-time communications. He believes we need to have different classes of service on the Internet and separate "flows" of communications. He comes back to this point later in his "Hypervoice" slide deck:

Hypervoice polyservicenetworks 1

This is where he and I part ways. As I said in my own response to Martin's comment to my earlier post:

Martin, yes, I've read your newsletters on this point and while I understand the concern I'm not ready to say that the plain old Internet can't deal with the contention. Back in the early 2000's I was the product manager for Mitel's "remote teleworker" product and there was great concern from the traditional telecom folks within Mitel about this idea that we were going to put an IP phone out at some random point on the Internet where there was no QoS or anything. In fact, some folks wanted us to say that it had "cell-phone voice quality" so that we wouldn't set high expectations about voice quality. The reality was that through appropriate codecs, jitter buffers and other technologies the connections almost always worked and almost always had outstanding quality (usually FAR better than cellphones).

The other reality is that we've seen OTT providers like Skype and others providing excellent services that work the vast majority of the time. We're seeing new and improved codecs coming into the market. We're seeing new traffic shaping technologies. The list goes on...

If the (brief) history of the Internet has shown us anything, it is that the Internet's capacity to adapt and change is boundless. We'll see what happens in the time ahead.

And no, I haven't written off the telcos as having a role in real-time comms. I just don't know that the "role" they may have will necessarily be the one they would like to have! ;-)

I believe fundamentally that the "open" Internet can and will adapt to the needs of carrying real-time communications. I would argue that it already has in so many ways... and it will change even more as we continue to move more and more real-time comms onto the Internet, particularly with WebRTC and other emerging technology.

And yes, you might expect me to say this as a passionate advocate for an open Internet, but I firmly believe this:

We do NOT need separate layers of the Internet based on class of service.

That, to me, is a dangerous path. I want to continue to see an Internet where all nodes are treated equally ... and where real-time communications can work for all.

Martin and I will probably have to agree to disagree on this. It's doubtful he can convince me nor I can convince him.

What do you think? Do we need different layers of the Internet? Or can the Internet adapt without that? Leave a comment here... or join in to today's VUC call and comment there.

If you found this post interesting or useful, please consider either:

What is an Over-The-Top (OTT) Application or Service? - A Brief Explanation

OttWhat is an "over-the-top" or "OTT" application or service? How does an OTT telecommunications or media app/service differ from a "regular" application?

The answer depends upon your perspective.

For a regular user of the Internet, an "OTT app or service" is something like:

  • YouTube, Hulu, Netflix or Apple TV for streaming video
  • Skype or Facetime for voice/video calls
  • WhatsApp or iMessage for messages on a mobile device
  • Xbox 360 or World of Warcraft for gaming

Basically, any service you are receiving over the Internet that is NOT provided directly by your Internet Service Provider (ISP).

Of course, for an ISP / telecommunication provider, the critical point about an OTT app/service is the part I emphasized - it is NOT a service you are paying them for.

And they are not happy about this.

It's not clear to me when precisely we in the industry started talking about "over-the-top" applications and services, but I first saw OTT mentioned back in 2008 or 2009 when the term was primarily applied to video services such as those coming from Netflix or Hulu. At the time, major US service providers such as Comcast and AT&T were rolling out their video-on-demand services and were being challenged by these "OTT" providers. Netflix and Hulu provided their service "over-the-top" of your Internet connection, without any interaction whatsoever with your Internet service provider (nor any revenue to that service provider).

Since that time, I've seen "OTT" applied to the zillions of messaging apps that have now sprouted up in the mobile environment to provide an alternative to the costly SMS provided by the traditional telcos. WhatsApp, Apple's iMessage, Blackberry Messenger (BBM), TU Me... and a hundred others that keep popping up on a weekly basis. Some would even lump Twitter and Facebook into this category. (And SMS revenue by telcos are facing a serious decline from the use of these apps. Ovum estimated the decline at $13.9 billon for 2011.)

I've also seen "OTT" applied to VoIP apps such as Skype (whose network overlay architecture I wrote about previously). And now we have Apple's Facetime and a hundred startups like Viber, Voxer, Tango, etc.

Recently I saw a document that painted "OTT" even more broadly as a term applying to any "content provider" on the Internet, i.e. basically everyone publishing content in any form.

The key point of all of this is that the OTT apps/services do not come from the traditional telcos or Internet service providers.

The telcos and ISPs are merely providers of the IP connectivity. The OTT apps ride on top of that Internet connection.

The telcos and ISPs are simply big, fat, dumb pipes.

Some of the telcos and ISPs out there are smart enough to see what's going on and are trying to become the biggest, fattest pipe out there and provide the best possible service. Some are launching their own apps/service that are NOT limited to their own customer base.

And some of the telcos are so desperate to hold on to their legacy business models that they are trying to get the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to regulate OTT apps and service providers through the upcoming World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT). They are hoping to use WCIT as a vehicle to re-inject themselves into the revenue stream and somehow start charging "OTT" providers. (But that's a topic for another blog post...)

So when you hear people talking about "OTT apps" or "OTT services," they are typically referring to applications or services that ride on top of your Internet connection - but have no relationship with the provider of your Internet connection.

OTT apps and services are a major component of the ongoing war between "content providers" and "access providers"... a fundamental tension within the Internet that shows no sign of being resolved anytime soon. But more on that another time... :-)

In the meantime, what we all can do is reject the use of the term "OTT" from the telcos and instead focus on referring to these apps instead as:

  • "IP communications apps"
  • "IP-based communications apps"
  • "communications apps"
  • "messaging apps"

because they are just apps that work on IP networks... whether those are from the legacy telcos or any other service provider.

Asterisk SCF: Scalability, Extensibility, Performance

asteriskscf.jpgThe big news coming out of Astricon last week in DC was the "Asterisk Scalable Communications Framework", a.k.a. "Asterisk SCF". The main goals of the project are to bring to the Asterisk platform:

  • Scalability (and high availability)
  • Extensibility
  • Performance

As a long-time fan of Asterisk (and user/administrator at various points of time), I can agree that all of these are areas where the base Asterisk IP-PBX can use some help.

Asterisk SCF is NOT a replacement for Asterisk. Instead it is essentially a framework for extending Asterisk and adding new functionality. As the executive summary outlines:

Asterisk SCF is designed as a distributed system of components that can be deployed in clusters on a single system or on many systems, transparently. Implementing Asterisk SCF as a cluster of small components allows it to naturally take advantage of the ever-wider multi-core CPUs being produced today as well as the movement to off-site or cloud-based computing. In addition, all operational data elements required by Asterisk SCF’s components are themselves managed by their own Asterisk SCF components, allowing for active/passive failover models with no disruption of service. The design also ensures active/active failover and load-sharing models can be supported. These design elements allow capacity to be added to an operating Asterisk SCF cluster by simply enabling additional component instances.

The "distributed system" part is the key. I wasn't at AstriCon, but from the Twitter stream as the event was unfolding it sounds like the Digium folks had a good bit of fun with the keynote announcement... including where they simulated three data centers and then pulled the power from one to show that calls stayed up. This kind of capability is what Asterisk needs to grow into new areas of deployment.

Asterisk SCF is still in development... only an "alpha" is available now and a beta will be out sometime in 2011. The Digium folks have put together a pretty comprehensive wiki about Asterisk SCF at:

I found the Introduction and FAQ both quite useful to read.

As a huge believer in the power of distributed systems, I wish the folks at Digium and within the Asterisk community all the best as they undertake this Asterisk SCF effort. I (and many others, I'm sure) will be watching and looking forward to seeing what evolves out of the effort. I'm sure there will be many more posts to be written...

P.S. FYI, Dave Michels published a good post over at the UC Strategies blog: "The Next Big Thing: Asterisk SCF

If you found this post interesting or useful, please consider either:

Another Hotel Fails To Support Skype - Here's Why Skype's P2P Connection Model Breaks Their System

UPDATE: When I stayed at this same hotel in August 2010, I no longer had the issue with Skype being blocked. Presumably they got a smarter network monitoring system. While this specific hotel now works with Skype, the same issue will undoubtedly be out there for many other hotels and locations.

Summary: Hotels restricting the number of simultaneous network connections per user may wind up blocking legitimate usage of Skype. Skype's peer-to-peer network model uses a high number of network connections to synchronize multi-party group chats.

Read on for the full story, network diagrams, etc....

grandbohemian.jpgTwo weeks ago on a visit to Voxeo's corporate headquarters in Orlando, FL, I stayed at the Grand Bohemian Hotel, conveniently located only a block or so away. Arriving in the early evening, I checked in, got to my room and immediately plugged my laptop into the Ethernet port to catch up on what had happened while I'd been offline traveling. As is the case in many hotels, I was asked to login and pay through a system from "Nomadix". I did so... and very quickly started to see Skype coming online, my other IM client (Adium) coming online, email starting to flow in and a website coming up.

Then it all stopped.

No Internet connection. Offline. I did all the standard things... disconnect and reconnect the cable. Stop/start the network interface. Nada. Nothing. Dead.

I'd only been on a minute or two but it had seemed to be fine, so I naturally called the front desk who put me through to the tech support team which turned out to be an external company. (Note: Nomadix makes the gateway that is used by this external company to operate the hotel's network. The network is not operated by Nomadix.) They, too, ran through the typical checks, found nothing, and then checked the list of blocked IP addresses - there I was.

The technician unblocked my IP address... I saw that I was online again... and then after a minute or so I wasn't. I called back in, spoke with a different technician, had the same experience and stayed on the phone for a good bit investigating the matter.

It turns out that:

they automatically block IP addresses that generate over 200 simultaneous network connections.

And here is my dilemma:

I am a heavy user of Skype, particularly Skype's persistent group chats.

skypelogo-shadow.pngEvery time I connected, Skype was initiating hundreds of network connections to update all of the group chats that I had open. This, of course, was triggering the rules in the Internet gateway and landing me on the blocked list. If the technician unblocked me (or later testing seemed to show that every 15 minutes or so the block was released), I would then wind up blocked again after only a minute or so.

The support technicians were all very pleasant and explained that unfortunately the 200-connection-limit was hard-coded into the gateway system and there was nothing they could do (at their level, anyway) to change or set aside that limit.

As a security guy, I do understand some of what the company is trying to do here with the limit. They do have to treat the hotel network as "hostile" to a certain degree. Someone with malicious intent might connect to the network and try to execute a Denial-of-Service attack or send out spam. Or someone might unwittingly be infected with a bot that is commanded to execute some attack. They also want to prevent someone from sucking up all the network bandwidth so that other hotel users receive poor service. Limiting the network connections is one way to potentially try to deal with these type of attacks. Unfortunately, the limits also restrict the legitimate usage of Skype.

To explain how Skype plays a role here, let's dig a bit more into the way in which Skype's P2P architecture works...


In any given peer-to-peer service (Skype or otherwise), there is a fundamental design difference from "typical" services:

there are NO centralized servers.

If you look at a "standard" instant messaging (IM) service, all of the IM clients connect in to a central server (or group of servers). From a network point of view, it looks like what you see in this image:


This could be for AOL/AIM, MSN/WLM, Yahoo!Messenger, Jabber, IRC or pretty much any of the other IM services out there outside of Skype.

ALL traffic goes through the central server. If you want to send an IM message to the person sitting next to you, your IM messages are still going through a central server somewhere.

From a network traffic point-of-view, each IM client is opening up a small number of connections to the central IM service. It might only be a single connection, or it might be a couple... but it's only a few. All traffic, both control messages and the messages themselves, travel across those few connections - and all through those central servers.

Over in peer-to-peer land, though, where there are no central servers all of the communication occurs through what is typically referred to as an "overlay network" (or "P2P overlay network" or "P2P overlay"). The overlay network is essentially a "virtual network" between all the nodes in a network. From an architecture perspective, it looks like this:


It's a "mesh" network where all of the service clients are interconnected with all the other clients. (In fact, the term "peer" is typically used instead of "client".) Typically in a P2P network this "overlay network" may be a "distributed hash table" (DHT) using a protocol like Chord or Bittorrent. It sits on top of a systems existing IP connection to the Internet - hence the term "overlay". So this is a P2P network sitting on top of the regular IP network.


Caveat: I am not an employee of Skype and have no real connection with Skype other than having been an user for something like 5 years now. The material below is based on educated guesses - and could be entirely wrong. (And I'd love it if someone from Skype would confirm or deny any of the info here...)

Skype uses some type of P2P network for communication between Skype clients. When your Skype client comes online, it connects to the Skype P2P overlay network. I don't know personally what protocol Skype uses for its overlay network, but odds are that it is some kind of DHT or similar system. Now, Skype's network is not entirely a P2P network in that there are some centralized services that do, for instance, authentication (which were part of the outage back in August 2007), but for the most part it's a big P2P cloud.

Now let's talk about Skype's "persistent group chats". The strength of Skype's multi-person group chats is that you can shut down your computer, travel somewhere, open your computer back up, have Skype reconnect..

and receive ALL communication that occurred in the group chat while you were offline.

This is a huge benefit to an IM-centric organization. If you shut your computer down at the end of the day, or if you are traveling, you simply reconnect and have the complete history of all communication that occurred while you were offline. It works fantastically well for globally distributed teams. I use it heavily within Voxeo and for external teams as well.

The question naturally is... when you are offline, and if there are no central servers...

where are the chat messages stored that you get when you come back online?

The answer, of course, is:

the messages are stored in Skype's P2P overlay network.
(Do you see yet where this is going and the problem it's going to create?)

So if I am in a Skype group chat with five other people, all the text we type is stored in the Skype overlay network and specifically in a mini-network or "ring" between our 6 nodes. Now... we don't know Skype's P2P protocol to know precisely how it is stored across the nodes... but some parts of the text are probably found in all the members of our little ring.

When you have been offline and come back online, your Skype client has to connect out to the others in your mini-network to update your local client with all the messages that occurred when you were offline. Because your Skype client may not know if the 5 other clients were all online during the entire time you were off, your client seems to need to check with all of the other nodes in your mini-network. So it looks something like this:


Now, if you look at it from a network traffic point-of-view, 1 Skype groupchat generated 5 network connections. (And that assumes only a single connection is made per Skype node.) From various discussions and research over the years, the rule seems to be:

Each Skype groupchat is going to generate a number of network connections equal to the number of participants in the groupchat, up to a limit of 15 per chat.

If you have an open chat to one other person, when your Skype client comes online it generates 1 network connection to that person. If you have an open chat to 2 other people, Skype opens 2 network connections. For 5 others in a chat, that's five connections. Ten others in a chat, 10 connections... and so on.

This obviously doesn't scale when you get into very large group chats - I'm in one public chat that has been around for years and has 200+ participants. In those cases, a Skype developer a few years back said in a public chat that in group chats larger than 15 people, your Skype client would connect out to 15 other nodes in the chat to get updates. I don't know if that is still true today, but it seems a logical way to address the scaling issue. Odds are that if you connect out to 15 other nodes, some number of those are going to be online and have enough of the chat history to get your client up-to-date.

For the purpose of this post, let's assume that is still accurate... and so any chat with more than 15 users generates 15 network connections when your Skype client comes online.


So here's the problem that I believe nailed me at the hotel. If I look at my Skype client right this moment, I have 56 chats open in one window and 20 chats open in another - total of 76. skypechats-1.jpg That's actually down a bit because I went through and closed a bunch recently. In scanning through the list, probably 15 of them are 1-to-1 chats that I either keep open because they are people I frequently communicate with or are new chats that I haven't closed - and keeping the chats open lets me very easily see their presence. The rest are multi-person group chats that range from 3-5 people up to 150 or in one case 200 people. Most of them seem to be in the 10-20 person range. Some are long-term chats that I keep open because there is frequent traffic in them, others are short-term chats that have been set up for specific projects or events and will then be closed when the project or event is over.

Without actually going through and calculating the precise number, I'm going to guess that the average number of participants across the 61 group chats is probably around 10-20.

For the sake of keeping the math simple, let's just assume the average number is 10 users. Multiple that by 61 and then add in the 15 one-to-one chats and you have:

625 network connections


If the hotel blocks a user at 200 connections, I'm obviously triggering limits. Even if my average is off, or if Skype does something to space out connections over time (which it doesn't seem to do) or to otherwise make connections between users more efficient, I am still probably going to run over that 200 connection limit. My network traffic profile at a high level is going to look like a spammer or DoS attack.

Keep in mind that these are short, quick connections just to sync with the other nodes in the ring created for each chat and get any messages - so we are not necessarily looking at a large amount of bandwidth, but we are looking at a large quantity of connections.

[NOTE: The next step someone needs to do is to take some wireshark captures and generate some pretty graphs of network connections.]


So now what? What should I as a user do?

  1. DON'T USE SKYPE - I'm sure someone will suggest this. However, Skype estimates that over 30% of their traffic is business usage. Outside of my own usage, I know many people who use Skype as a significant part of their business communication. Not using Skype obviously is a solution, but not the desired outcome.

    This isn't only about "skype". While Skype is the issue in this post, this is a general concern with P2P architectures in general. As an open standards supporter, I'd love to see someone come along with a solution based on P2PSIP that provides similar features - but guess what, it's going to run into similar issues. It's an architecture issue - the idea of blocking on some number of connections is based on the old-fashioned client/server model where local clients make only a small number of connections out to dedicated servers. For that model, it may work... but that doesn't reflect evolving usage of P2P networks that are a mesh between nodes.

    Today the issue hits Skype... tomorrow it may hit some other cool application that uses P2P for communication.

  2. HAVE FEWER OPEN GROUP CHATS - It's not clear to me how quickly Skype checks the status of "closed" group chats, i.e. ones that you are still a member of but are not currently displaying. It has to check at some point in case someone typed messages there, but does it do it on initial connection or launch? (I don't know.)

  3. REDUCE THE NUMBER OF GROUP CHATS - Obviously this can help address the issue... simply "leave" (versus "close") many of the chats you are in. However, the persistent group chats are one of Skype's great features and enable very powerful collaboration between globally distributed teams. Not really an option.

  4. CHANGE HOTELS - Of course we as users have the option to find other hotels that don't place the same restrictions... but sometimes we don't have that option.

What can hotels do?

  1. RAISE THE CONNECTION LIMIT - An obvious solution is raise the number of simultaneous allowed connections... to what number, I don't know... there are trade-offs in trying to block the illegitimate traffic that may be on the network.

  2. PERFORM MORE INTELLIGENT LIMITING - Applying a hard limit on the raw number of network connections is a rather brute-force approach. Instead the software should look at the quality of the network traffic. Are there are large number of high-bandwidth connections? Perhaps someone is downloading software or movies via some P2P network... in that case maybe they need to be throttled back or limited. Are they smaller connections that may be okay? Can they identify the actual Skype traffic and allow it but block other traffic?

  3. THROTTLE/LIMIT VERSUS BLOCK - The rules I ran afoul of block your entire Internet access. Too many connections and your link goes dead. Why not truly limit or throttle back the connection instead of terminate it entirely? There's technology out there that can do this type of thing. (Consider, for instance, the idea behind good old ICMP source quench.)

  4. ALLOW TECHNICIAN OVERRIDES - When I spoke with the technicians and explained what I was doing, the technicians had no options other than to momentarily unblock my IP address. Why not allow them to have a "white list" to which they could add the addresses of certain guests who request special access? It doesn't solve the issue, but it at least would keep certain guests happy.

  5. GET A NEW SOFTWARE SOLUTION - Obviously to do these steps the hotel may need to look at new software... or a new Internet provider.

  6. _____________ - What else do you suggest they do?

It's 2010 - the reality is that Skype isn't going away... and P2P architectures are continuing to evolve and provide interesting ways to solve communication challenges. The fully-meshed P2P overlay network will continue to be a feature of proprietary networks like Skype as well as standards-based solutions. Travelers want to use communications solutions like Skype... and hotels and their Internet providers need to figure out how to allow the legitimate usage of these tools and services while still keeping their controls in place to block malicious network usage.

What do you suggest? What would you do as a user or as a hotel?

P.S. This issue has been around for quite some time... I wrote about another hotel blocking Skype back in 2007. Same issue... blocking on *quantity* of connections versus actual network impact.

If you found this post interesting or useful, please consider either subscribing to the RSS feed or following me on Twitter or