Real Time P2P File Sharing Traffic Identification Based on Connection Patterns

碩士 === 國立交通大學 === 網路工程研究所 === 97 === The use of peer-to-peer (P2P) applications is growing dramatically, particularly for sharing large video/audio files and software, which results in several serious problems, such as internet piracy and unreasonable utilization of network resources. To conquer the...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Chen, Yi-Hui, 陳薏卉
Other Authors: Wang, Kuo-Chen
Format: Others
Language:en_US
Published: 2009
Online Access:http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/59516317023896469077
Description
Summary:碩士 === 國立交通大學 === 網路工程研究所 === 97 === The use of peer-to-peer (P2P) applications is growing dramatically, particularly for sharing large video/audio files and software, which results in several serious problems, such as internet piracy and unreasonable utilization of network resources. To conquer these problems, in this thesis, we propose a heuristic-based real time file sharing traffic identification (RTI) scheme at the transport layer for facilitating network management. The proposed RTI only needs a 5 seconds trace to effectively identify P2P file sharing traffic in real time for network management tools to timely filter, block, or record the traffic. The proposed RTI can be divided into three phases. In the first phase, we use port numbers to filter out non-P2P packets. In the second phase, we use three heuristics to identify P2P-using hosts. These heuristics are based on connection patterns of P2P networks, i.e., the numbers of distinct destination IPs and ports, and the usage of UDP packets. In the last phase, we use four heuristics to identify P2P file sharing traffic from the P2P-using hosts identified in the second phase. To evaluate the effectiveness of our scheme, we used traces collected in our campus network for P2P file sharing traffic identification and a payload-based classifier for verifying our traffic identification results. Experimental results indicate that the proposed RTI had the accuracy of 96.2% and the FPRate (false positive rate) of 3.5%. In contrast, John [9] had the accuracy of only 64.8% and FPRate of 74.19% using the same trace.