Int. J.

Advanced Networking and Applications 3477

Volume: 09 Issue: 04 Pages: 3477-3491(2018) ISSN: 0975-0290

Comparative Analysis of Peer to Peer Networks

SalehaMasood
Department of Computer Science, Comsats Institute of Information technology WahCantt
[E-mail: salehamasood08@gmail.com]
Muhammad AlyasShahid
Department of Computer Science, Comsats Institute of Information technology WahCantt
[E-mail: mashahid79@gmail.com]
Muhammad Sharif
Department of Computer Science, Comsats Institute of Information technology WahCantt
[E-mail: muhammadsharifmalik@yahoo.com]
MussaratYasmin
Department of Computer Science, Comsats Institute of Information technology WahCantt
[E-mail: mussaratabdullah@gmail.com]
-------------------------------------------------------------------ABSTRACT---------------------------------------------------------------
Today over the Internet, communication and computing environments are considerably and significantly
becoming more and more chaotic and complex than normal classical distributed systems that have some lacking of
any hierarchical control and some centralized organization. There in the emerging of Peer-to-Peer (P2P) networks
overlays has become of much interest because P2P networks provide a good quality substrate to create a large-
scale content distribution, data sharing, and multicast applications at the application-level. P2P networks are
commonly used as “file-swapping” in any network to provide support in sharing of distributed contents. For data
and file sharing, a number of P2P networks have been deployed and developed. Gnutella, Fast track and Napster
are three popular and commonly used P2P networking systems. In this research a broad overview of P2P networks
computing is presented. This research is focusing on content sharing technologies, networks and techniques. In this
research, it is also tried to emphasize on the study and analysis of popular P2P network topologies used in
networking systems. This research is also focuses, identifies and describes the most common architecture models of
P2P networks and compares different properties, characteristics and features of four P2P systems—Fast track,
Gnutella, Open FT and Napster. In P2P organization, every peer grosses mutually the parts of the server as well of
the client. By way of a client, it can demand and copy its required record files from additional peers, and in place
of a server, it can offer data files to additional peers. The survey basically analyzes and outlines the basic
structuring of P2P networks together with their analysis, comparison, applications, advantages, and
disadvantages. The survey presents numerous organized and unstructured P2P structures.
Keywords -Peer to Peer Networks, Centralized, Distributed, Structured, Unstructured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Submission: Nov 22, 2017 Date of Acceptance: Dec 08, 2017
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------
I. INTRODUCTION computers, P2P is gradually receiving attention in analysis
and progression, product enlargement, and estimation
G roups of networks in which all the connected peers clusters [3]. P2P organizations can be characterized based
have equal and comparable capabilities and on the setup above data background, situation, and
accountabilitiesP2P networks are. In P2P networks, topology of the network. So taking this potential in mind,
individual peers within the network tend to share data, the classification of P2P organizations comprises: loosely
storage, distributed virtual storage [102] and CD-ROM structured, vastly structured and unstructured systems [4].
drives but on the contradictory side the structure of a client In an unstructured P2Psystem like Gnutella [5], no law
and server exhibits a tendency in which clients have subsists which describes where data is stored and the
accesses to data only through server [1] by using nay system topology is random. In a loosely organized system
operating system i.e windows, Linux, Unix, Mac or any like Freenet [6] and Symphony [7], the overlap
tinyOS[106]. organization and the statistics position are not exactly
P2Pis a communication model in which each party has the firm. In Freenet, mutually the overlap topology and the
same capabilities and either party can initiate a statistics position are determined based on suggestions.
communication session. The system topology ultimately progresses into certain
Other models with which it can be compared include the projected arrangement. In Symphony, the intersection
client/server model and the master/slave model [2]. topology is resolute probabilistically, however, the facts
There has been a developing deliberation in P2P locality is demarcated exactly [8].In an exceedingly
organizations since the principal achievement of a typical organized P2P system like Chord, both the system design
application comprised of content sharing including and the statistics location are exactly quantified. The
Gnutella and Napster. The term “peer to peer” signifies to nationals of a peer are well-defined. The statistics are
an assembly of organizations that conquers distributed stored in a clear position. P2Psystems can similarly be
possessions to achieve a risky operation in a dispersed characterized into centralized and decentralized categories
mundane. By means of the established propagation of [9-11]. Within centralized P2P networks like Napster, a
Int. J. Advanced Networking and Applications 3478
Volume: 09 Issue: 04 Pages: 3477-3491(2018) ISSN: 0975-0290

chief almanac of entity position, ID consignment is

preserved in a solo position. Peers discover the positions
of preferred files by enquiring the chief directory server.  July 1999: journal of Freenetprocedure.
P2P was initially used to define the interaction between
two nodes or peers in a network and is equivalent to a  September 1999: formation of Napster.
telephone exchange. A phone exchange consists of two  November 1999: principal discharge of Direct
individuals (peers or nodes) of equivalent rank, interaction
among a point to point construction [12].Peer to Peer Connect customer.
network can also be used in ANN Based Task Scheduling  March 14, 2000: principal discharge of Gnutella.
Strategies in Heterogeneous Distributed Computing
Systems [107], Wireless USB Home Security System  September 6, 2000: principal discharge of
using Internet Technology [108], password attacks and eDonkey2000.
comparative analysis on methods for secure authentication
[109], Priority based congestion control routing in wireless  March 2001: outline of the Fast Track procedure.
mesh network [110], Protecting Users against Phishing
 April 2001: the strategy of the Bit Torrent
Attacks[111], Benchmarking of PVM and LAM/MPI
Using OSCAR, Rocks and Knoppix Clustering Tools procedure.
[112], Identification of a Lossy Channel in Wireless Mesh
 July 2001: closure of Napster.
Network using Conservation of flow [113], A Unified
Model for Computer Threat Protection (UMCTP) [114]  November 6, 2001: chief relief of GNU net.
and in Virtualization tools and techniques [115]. P2P can
also be used in tracking a vehicle in any vehicular network  November 2002: start of the Gnutella2scheme.
[116].  After 2002, a number of different P2P networks are
Later on, the concept of the internet was introduced. The
internet took place as a P2Porganization. The aim of the developed.
novel ARPANET was to part computing possessions
nearby the USA. Its encounter was to attach a group or
pairs of dispersed assets, by means of diverse organization
connection, inside one mutual system construction [13].
After the late 1960s till 1994, the internet consumed single
prototype of connection among peers. Equipment’s or
machines were anticipated to be constantly swapped on,
permanently associated and allocated enduring internet
protocol (IP)discourses [14]. The novel DNS organization
was deliberated on behalf of this background, where a
modification in IP address was expected to be anomalous
and infrequent, and might yield days to broadcast through
the organization. Conversely, with the creation of Mosaic,
additional model originated to transpire in the arrangement
of consumers linking to the internet through dial-up
modems [15]. This formed an additional course of
connectivity for the reason that computers would pass in
and consent the system habitually and impulsively [16].
For a few years, considering computers as customers
functioned healthy [17]. Over the period, however, like
software and hardware enhanced, the vacant assets that
occurred behind this covering of second-course
connectivity took place to appear as somewhat value
receiving at. Provided with the massive collection of
presented computers cited previously, the software
communal society started to yield P2P solicitations
seriously [18]. Utmost prominently, P2P investigation is
related in talking few of the chief problems of existing
dispersed computing i.e. scalability, consistency, and
interoperability [19]. The summary of history of P2P
networks [20] can be analyzed below:
Int. J. Advanced Networking and Applications 3479
Volume: 09 Issue: 04 Pages: 3477-3491(2018) ISSN: 0975-0290

The roadmap of history of P2P networks is shown in Fig 1:

st nd rd
1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage

Prehistory C/S modelP2P term and applications widely used

Expands1st Generation 2ndGeneration rd
3 Generation
DNS
MUTE WASTE
MUTE
Web Kazaa MUTE
Usenet Napster
Freenet
Metanet MUTE
FTP Gnutella
ARPANE MUTE
T
Entropy GNUnet
MUTE MUTE

1969 1995 1999 2000 2001 2013

Fig 1: Roadmap of P2P networks history [118]

II. RELATED WORK networks a new system named Gossip Trust is presented in
By analyzing the literature, one can say that huge work has [34]. An approach proposes a new experimental weighting
been done in the field of P2P networks. The enormous method for picking the best-expected route to create a role
growth of P2Pnetworks is proving the fact that they are centered trust series. They put on past profound heuristics
becoming the most important tool in the prospect of file to measure the route complication and to measure the
sharing [21]. Communication among the different nodes connecting competence [35]. Hybrid search in P2P
and peers together with providing security and privacy is networks is presented in [36]. Range query processing is
another important prospect in this regard [22]. one of the major applications in the domain of P2P
Configuration management of P2P networks is one of the networks; an approach handling this prospect is presented
main concepts that can be applied to a number of different in [37]. An improved Hybrid P2P approach that proposes
systems one [23]. Distribution of live streaming among the and controls the concept of boot net in P2P networks and
nodes or peers is another major field of P2P networks. the results showed that this approach is much harder to
Tree management algorithm for this purpose is proposed shutdown [38]. The concept of clustering through the use
and developed in [24].Phoenix is another approach in P2P of k-mean approach in P2P networks is presented in
networks that generates low-diameter irrepressible P2P [39].Liu et al. in[40]offered a principal approach intended
overlay network [25]. The service of lookup in P2P over for the topology discrepancy problem among unstructured
random topology can be analyzed in [26] that mainly P2P systems. The problem of resolving the mismatch
describe a search methodology deprived of obvious problem can be analyzed [41].P2P streaming through a
control of overly systems. A system named zigzag in the distributed protocol is presented in [42]. Management of
prospect of media streaming in P2P networks is another multidimensional past data in unstructured P2P networks
important area in P2P systems [27]. Another application procedure through a novel method is presented in [43].
includes evaluation of ascendable solicitation level The concept of probabilistic flooding in generalized form
multicast built through the use of P2P networks [28]. File in unstructured P2P networks is presented in [44].
sharing is the major functionality of P2Pnetworks. Heterogeneous search in the P2P networks can be
Modeling P2P networks on a number of diverse systems analyzed in [45].The structured P2P networks show a
structure is presented in [29]. Evaluation and modeling of more efficient response to the fact of fault tolerance [46].
the flexibility of P2P networks can be analyzed in [30]. The design and analysis of a protocol named Ulysses can
The analysis technique for adaptive selection centered be analyzed in [47]. The analysis of P2P network
procedures for the estimated replying of ad hoc, mobile ad properties through the use of a graph is presented in [48].
hoc and wireless ad hoc [103-105] combination inquiries Analysis of P2Psystems in the prospect of error recovery
in P2P databases is presented in [31]. Analysis of file is another important factor in the prospect of P2P networks
sharing mechanism, its modeling and improvement in Bit [49]. The impact of free riding in P2P networks resulted
Torrent can be analyzed in [32]. Another technique that, with the presence of free riding concept, P2P
presents an estimated native system aimed at categorizing networks operates more efficiently [50]. Routing or
upper liner products between sets of feature vectors in an direction finding with secure parameters in structured P2P
enormous asynchronous dispersed atmosphere like a P2P networks is presented in [51].The analysis of the
network [33]. For firm standing accumulation in P2P contribution of each peer in P2P networks is important, an
Int. J. Advanced Networking and Applications 3480
Volume: 09 Issue: 04 Pages: 3477-3491(2018) ISSN: 0975-0290

approach in this context is presented in [52]. Performance

analysis in P2P networks in the context of file sharing can Centralized
be analyzed in [53]. An approach presents a protocol Based on File
named PCoord, a dispersed system coordinate Sharing
organization aimed at overlap topology detection and Decentralized
distance extrapolation [54]. The simulation of P2P P2P
networks is another major field in the context of P2P Architecture
networks [55]. A comparison of P2P overlay networks can Structured
be analyzed in [56]. Illegal data sharing including media Based on Node
Connection
files in P2P networks is an important research domain
Unstructured
[57]. Content-based retrieval in hybrid P2P networks is
presented in [58]. A survey on the management of P2P
Fig 2: Architecture of P2P systems
networks is presented in [59]. Distribution of data sharing
a resource in hybrid P2P networks can be analyzed in [60].
A. Based on the File Sharing:
If a P2P system is analyzed on the basis of file sharing
III. ARCHITECTURE OF P2P NETWORKS prospect then P2P networks can be classified into two
The architecture of the P2P networks can be classified into broad categories, which are centralized P2P networks and
two broad categories. The networks are distributed on the decentralized P2P networks. Here is a brief overview of
basis of its file sharing method and the way they are each of the category.
connected. The P2P networks are distributed as centralized
and decentralized networks in the case of file sharing 1. Centralized:
schemes. P2P networks are distributed as structured and In centralized P2P systems, all the files exist on a central
unstructured networks on the basis of the way the nodes server. Peers are connected to this central server in order
are connected. The distribution of P2P networks to provide services [61]. An example of centralized P2P
architecture can be analyzed in Fig 2: network is shown in Fig 3.Examples: Napster, ICQ.

Fig 3: Centralized P2P Network [61]

2. Decentralized
Here in decentralized there exist no central server; instead B. Depending on how the nodes are connected
each peer or node is connected to a number of different If P2P system is analyzed based on how the nodes are
nodes to get the proper services. In other words they are connected then P2P networks can be classified into two
the pure peers or super peers [62]. In Fig 4, an example of broad categories, which are structured P2P networks and
decentralized P2P network is shown. Examples: Gnutella, unstructured P2P networks. Here is a brief overview of
Bit Torrent each of the category.

i. Structured
It uses to implement algorithms in order to provide
connection surely among the nodes. The structured
systems are complex in structure but provide efficiency
[63]. Examples: DHT and Hyper Cup. The architecture of
the structured P2P network is shown in Fig 5:

Fig 4: Decentralized P2P Network [62]

Int. J. Advanced Networking and Applications 3481
Volume: 09 Issue: 04 Pages: 3477-3491(2018) ISSN: 0975-0290

Fig 6: Architecture of Unstructured P2P Networks [64]

IV. TYPES OF P2P NETWORKS

There exist three categories of P2P networks as shown in

Fig 7:

Fig 5: Structured P2P Network [63] Types of P2P

2. Unstructured
It involves the arbitrary creation of nodes and each node Pure P2P Hybrid P2P Mix P2P
involved in this case has the ability to copy the
information on the link between other connected nodes Fig 7: Types of P2PNetworks
[64]. Examples in this regard involve Fast Track, A. Pure P2P Networks
Gnutella. The architecture of the unstructured P2P All nodes perform equally, it replies that there is no
network is shown in Fig 6: devoted server, all nodes act likewise. It means that all the
participating peers or nodes in a pure P2P network are
equal in logic that each node or peer act as both i.e. as a
client andas a server. There exists no central server.
Examples of pure P2P networks are Gnutella and Freenet.
The concept of pure P2P network in the Freenet
architecture can be analyzed in the Fig8:

Fig 8: Freenet Architecture (Pure P2P Network) [117]

B. Hybrid P2P Networks Napster, there is a server that assists nodes to search for a
It performs as a client-server prototype as it has a chief specific file and start a direct communication among the
node or peer that performs as a server that retains statistics clients. The server only contains available files on its
on nodes and replies to entreaties on behalf of that catalog. Another example in this prospect is of Bit Torrent
information. Chief server (node or peer) recognizes what (BT). In BT, there is a central server named tracker that
possessions are communal and what are allowed. They are coordinates interaction between the nodes accessing BT to
also accountable for accommodating of offered assets download a file. The hybrid concept in the Napster
[65]. The example of hybrid P2P network is Napster. In architecture can be analyzed in the figure given below:
Int. J. Advanced Networking and Applications 3482
Volume: 09 Issue: 04 Pages: 3477-3491(2018) ISSN: 0975-0290

Fig 9: Napster Architecture (Hybrid P2P) [65]

C. Mixed P2P i. Napster Clients

Has both pure and hybrid characteristics. There are two main clients of Napster, which are shown in
The main and fundamental difference between hybrid and Fig 10:
pure P2P network is that hybrid P2P networks have a
central entity and there is no server in pure P2P networks. Napster
As compared to the hybrid P2P architecture, the pure P2P
design is simple with higher fault tolerance level. While,in
Clients Napster
a hybrid P2P designfewer network resources are used. It is
also more scalable as compared to pure P2P network.
Napigator
V. Types of P2P networks (Systems in P2P
Networks)
In P2P networks the systems that are mostly used are Fig 10: Napster Clients
unstructured and structured. In unstructured P2P no
specified structure of overlay is imposed while in 2. Gnutella
structured there is a specified structure of the network. Gnutella at the time of development was the largest
decentralized P2P network. The structure of Gnutella uses
A. Unstructured Systems: ad-hoc topology where each peer is connected to each
There are a number of P2P systems developed in this other node or peer in the network. Its structure holds the
prospect, some major systems in this context includes: property that peers without affecting the performance of
the other peers can disconnect from the network, so it also
1. Napster holds the property of dynamic network [68].
Napster was mainly developed by Sean Parker, John
Fanning, and Shawn Fanning. Initially, Napster was The population of Gnutella increased to about 1.81 million
proposed as aself-governingP2P file allocation facility in June 2005 which approached around 3 million in 2006.
[66]. The provision functioned among June 1999 and July And in 2007, it was considered among the utmost
2001.Its skills permitted individuals to effortlessly part widespread system of context sharing comprising 40% of
their MP3 stores with further members. Though the the market [69].
innovative provision was closed down by law court
command, the Napster product endured after the i. Gnutella Clients
company's possessions were settled and acquired by other The clients of Gnutella are shown in Fig 11:
corporations through insolvency measures [67].
Int. J. Advanced Networking and Applications 3483
Volume: 09 Issue: 04 Pages: 3477-3491(2018) ISSN: 0975-0290

eDonkey
Limewire Bearshare 2000
MLDonkey
eDonkey Clients
Cabos Shareaza eMule
Gnutella
Clients
aMule
Fig 11: Gnutella Clients
Fig 13: eDonkey Clients
ii. Gnutella: Analysis and Improvement
 Tractability 5 Bit Torrent
 Enactment & Immovability The structure of BT is centered on decentralized
 Consistency architecture [76]. The files in this structure are divided
into blocks or pieces where pieces size vary from 64 KB to
3. Fast Track 4MB and provides the way to further segment out these
The structure of Fast Track is centered on Hybrid sections into 16KB blocks[77].
architecture [70]. This P2P network is controlled using The three major components of BT involve:
two tiers which are first tier and second tier. The first tier  Trackers –the responsibility of this component is
basically connects nodes or peer to the super peers to track seeders, leechers and different pieces of
whereas in the second tier the super peers are connected to files from diverse users.
each other. It provides the capability to download a file  Seeders – This component comprises files in
from multiple users [71]. order to share with the other nodes or peers.
 Leechers – This unit has the responsibility for
i. FastTrack Clients downloading files from other nodes or peers.
The clients of Fast Track involve:
i. Features of Bit Torrent
Grokster  Consumers take. Torrent files which comprise meta-
data evidence.
FastTrack iMesh  Torrent collections can ensure one or numerous
followers.
Clients
Morpheus  Files are taken in fragments or chunks.
 Outfits file allocation equality.
Kazaa
6. Skype
Fig 12: FastTrack Clients Skype was developed by a team of software developers
including Janus Friis and NiklasZennström [78]. This
4. eDonkey structure of P2P network provides the facility of instant
It is centered on decentralized architecture [72]. It also messaging, chat, conferences, file sharing and transfer and
comprises of two tiers [73]. The first tier contains a central connects directly to the user [79].
server in order to maintain a list of files whereas the
second tier handles the file transfer property of the 7. Freenet
network. EServer and MetaMachine are the two server Freenet is a P2P podium intended for robust
software’s supported by eDonkey [74]. communication. Its structure is decentralized and in order
to hold and store data files it works with a group of free
i.eDonkey Protocol Features software. Jan Clarke designed the structure of Freenet
 It uses the mechanism of Metadata in order to search together with its basic tools and designed Freenet with the
data or contents including the size of the file, the objective of offering liberty of communication with robust
available number of sources, bit rate, artist etc. [75]. privacy safeguard [80].
 Provides the facility to download the same file from
numerous peers simultaneously. 8. Direct Connect
 It is capable of partial data or files sharing together Direct Connect was basically written by Neo-Modus. It is
with that handle and detects the corrupted data file allocation application. The major application used in
contents within a file. Direct Connect is today. It is a centralized structure where
in order to download a file users are connected to a central
ii.eDonkey Clients hub and have the ability to download from one another.
The clients of eDonley involve: Hubs offer a variety of clients that are connected to them
Int. J. Advanced Networking and Applications 3484
Volume: 09 Issue: 04 Pages: 3477-3491(2018) ISSN: 0975-0290

[81]. Users here can chat and download files from the terminated P2P network of linked internet masses [87].
other users connected to the central hub. The procedure is bootstrapped by means of providing it
through the IP discourse of a node previously in the
B. StructuredP2P networks system and from then on via the direction-finding counter
In structured P2P networks the overlay is organized into a which is animatedly constructed and renovated. For the
specific topology, and the protocol ensures that any node reason that of its dismissed and dispersed environment,
can work efficiently. Some major systems are given there is no solitary fact of disaster and any solo node can
below. dispense the system at any period deprived of cautioning
and with slight or no chance of statistics loss. The
1. Chord procedure is similarly talented of consuming a direction-
Chord is a procedure and system designed finding metric provided by an external suite, such
forP2P dispersed hash table. A distributed hash table as chick or smidgeon way, to regulate the finest ways to
supplies fundamental consequence sets by conveying keys collect in its routing table [88].
to diverse PCs (nodes); a node will collect the principles
on behalf of all the keys for which it is accountable. Chord VI. APPLICATIONS OF P2P NETWORKS
postulates in what way keys are allotted to nodes, and by
what means a node may discern the worth aimed at a There are a number of different P2P networks
specified key through first discovering the node applications. Some of the major application involves:
accountable on behalf of that key [82].
A. File Sharing
2. CAN (Content Addressable Network) The exchange of contents, files and data are the major and
CAN is a dispersed and scattered P2P organization that most supreme zones of P2P application areas. The peer
delivers the feature of the hash table on an Internet. CAN within the network provides the surety of file sharing
was among the supreme innovative for dispersed hash focusing on storing and retrieving data to and from other
table suggestions, familiarized simultaneously by way peers within the network. Kazza and Emule are the
of Tapestry, CAD, and Pastry. optimal examples in this context [89].
Similar further dispersed hash tables, CAN are intended to
be ascendable, error accepting, and self-establishing. The B. Distributed Computing
structural scheme is a simulated Cartesian coordinate The major task is carried out by the member of the
cosmos with various dimensions and is a category of drape network which offers the resources. The application works
system on a multi-torus [83]. by providing the idle cycles to the peer or node in the
network which requires extra time for the purpose of
3. Tapestry computation. One of the best examples of such application
Tapestry is a P2P overlay network which delivers is SETI@home [90].
a dispersed hash table, direction-finding
and multicasting organization intended for dispersed C. Communication and Collaboration
applications. The Tapestry P2P structure is proposal Another major application of P2P networks is the
effectual, ascendable, and self-mending, position collaboration and communication that aims at providing a
conscious and direction-finding to neighboring system for users to communicate with each other. The
possessions [84]. application provides chat instant messaging, shared apps
and online games [91]. These applications can be used in
4.Kademlia various domains including home atmosphere, industry,
Kademlia is a dispersed hash counter on behalf of a and education. The major examples in this domain include
dispersed P2P computer systems intended by David Jabber and Groove.
Mazières and PetarMaymounkov in 2002. It states the
assembly of the system and the interchange of statistics D. Network
through the peer lookups. Kademliapeers converse among This application provides a mechanism for networking
them by means of UDP. A simulated or overlap system is such as Dales which is a P2Pweb cache for LANs, Voice
molded through the contributing peers. Every peer is Peering Fabric and Open Garden [92].
recognized by a symbol or peer ID. The ID of the
peer assists not merely as identification; however the E. Science
Kademlia process utilizes the peer ID to trace standard. In The application of P2P networks in the category of
fact, the peer ID offers a straight plot to file hashes and bioscience include biometrics and identification of drug
that peer accounts statistics on where to acquire the file or candidate lastly, there is a science net P2P search engine
resource [86]. as well [93].

5. Pastry F. Search
The pastry is a drape and direction-finding system aimed P2P also provides with some P2P architecture based
at the enactment of a dispersed hash table (DHT) search engines which include yahoo, google, ask etc. [94].
like Chord. The key-value sets are deposited in a
Int. J. Advanced Networking and Applications 3485
Volume: 09 Issue: 04 Pages: 3477-3491(2018) ISSN: 0975-0290

VII.PROS AND CONS OF P2P NETWORKS IX.ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

There are many pros and cons of P2P network which are Here in this section, the major principles of structured and
given below. unstructured P2P networks will be analyzed and
A. ADVANTAGES OFP2P compared.
 Easy to connect and organize. Structured organizations provide an ascendable key for
 No devoted server needed. rigorous match demands, i.e. inquiries in which the whole
 Consumers handle their specific assets. identifier of the demanded statistics entity is recognized.
 Economical to acquire and control. There are means to utilize rigorous match inquiries like a
 No professional software mandatory. substrate aimed at keyword interrogations [28].
 No devoted supervisor to track the vital network. Conversely, it is not clear how these methods can be
 Nearly free. scaled in a dispersed background. The drawback of
 Profligate downloading. structured organizations is that it is difficult to preserve the
 Malleable organization. arrangement essential for direction-finding in a brief peer
or node residents, in which peer or nodes are connecting
B. DISADVANTAGES OF P2P NETWORKS and separating to a great degree.
Unstructured P2P organizations can upkeep limited
 Not so secure. keyword exploration. These organizations rely on sightless
 Viruses, spam, spyware, downloaded collections exploration procedures, like random walk and flooding.
might be septic, comprise an unsafe material, disrupt Therefore, the produced capacity of inquiry circulation
confidentiality. does not balance up with the development in network
 Occasionally unlawful as copyrighted dimension. Numerous exploration accomplishments are
collectionsinsideP2Pnetworks. intended towards enlightening the direction-finding
 Problematic to occupy a safety. enactment of unstructured P2P organizations through
 More over numerous passwords for common embracing suggestion centered direction-finding
possessions. approaches. Nodes or peers acquire from the consequences
 Backups are challenging to handle. of preceding direction-finding assessments, and prejudice
 No centralism. upcoming query direction-finding centered on this
information.
VIII.CHALLENGES IN P2P If unstructured P2P systems are looked into deeply, a
There are a number of challenges and problems that are number of significant advantages offered by them can be
faced by P2P networks. The major challenges that analyzed, which includes that it enforces minor requests
P2Psystems are facing are shown in Fig 10[94]: on the discrete peers or nodes. Most important feature is
that they permit its peer or nodes to leave the system or
network without having any effect on the performance of
Challenges in P2P the system. They also provide a better mechanism for
content-based retrieval. The varying power of peers and
The problem of nodes is also accommodated by unstructured P2P
Safety and
Depletion of copyrighted networks.
security
bandwidth data and file Subsequently, they also scale to enormous proportions and
concerns
dissemination they propose supplementary strong enactment in the
existence of peer let downs and linking unpredictability.
Fig 14: Challenges in P2P Networks Permitting to [97], if scalability apprehensions were
detached commencing P2P networks with unstructured
A. Distribution of Copyrighted Files nature, they have the chance of getting preference in case
P2Pnetworks are often sued by different organizations and of file-sharing on any cloud computing [98], and other
companies, eg(RIAA, MPAA, and ARIA). There are environments. Other solicitations including keyword
chances that users can be targeted. Copyright laws are searching, content replication at a reasonable division of
limited to few countries only. contributing spots and last but not the least the node
populace is extremely brief [99]. Table 1 presents a
B. SECURITY ISSUES comparison of certain convolutions of unstructured and
structured P2P networks. The table given below compares
There are a number of security issues that are faced by the structured and unstructured P2P networks based on the
P2P systems including malware, the spread of null files factor of fault tolerance, type, and the degree of
and virus, spyware, steganography use and lastly peers can centralization, the cost of lookup, space complexity,
be dispersed status principles[95]. scalability and space complexity [100-101]. The
comparison of structured and unstructured P2P networks
C. BANDWIDTH CONSUMPTION and centralized and decentralized networks is shown in
High bandwidth is essential [96]. Table 1 and Table 2 respectively.
Int. J. Advanced Networking and Applications 3486
Volume: 09 Issue: 04 Pages: 3477-3491(2018) ISSN: 0975-0290

Table 1: Comparison of structured and unstructured P2P networks

Architecture Type Degree of Cost lookup Space Complexity
centralization
Kademlia Structured Decentralized O(log(n)) O(log(n))
Pastry Structured Decentralized

Tapestry Structured Decntralized

CAN Structured Decentralized 2d

Chord Structured Decentralized O(log(n)) O(log(n))
Napster Unstructured Centralized O(1) O(n)
Gnutella Unstructured Decentralized O(n) O(n)
Freenet Unstructured Centralized Hops to Leave Hops to Leave
Direct Unstructured Centralized O(n) O(n)
Connect
Skype Unstructured Centralized O(n) O(n)
BitTorrent Unstructured Centralized O(n) O(n)
eDonkey Unstructured Centralized O(n) O(n)

Table 2: Comparison of structured and unstructured P2P networks

Architecture Fault Tolerance Scalability Query Efficiency
Kademlia Random Fair Good
Pastry Random Fair Good
Tapestry Random Fair Good
CAN Random Fair Good
Chord Random Fair Good
Napster Good Fair Poor
Gnutella Good Good Poor
Freenet Good Good Poor
Direct Connect Random Good Average
Skype Random Good Average
BitTorrent Random Good Average
eDonkey Random Good Average
The optimal P2P network can be chosen based on the
X. CONCLUSION application and its essential task and performance metrics.
The survey basically presents an overview and comparison P2P can be designated centered on content distribution,
of structured and unstructured P2P networks. The position facility, scalability, network routing enactment,
comparison shows that each system under the domain of file sharing, and so on.
P2P architecture has its own strengths and weaknesses.
measurement study of peer-to-peer file sharing
REFERENCES: systems". In Electronic Imaging 2002 (pp. 156-
[1] Stoica, I., et al. Chord, "A scalable peer-to-peer 170). International Society for Optics and
lookup service for internet applications". in Photonics. (2001, December).
ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication [7] Kang, B. B., Chan-Tin, E., Lee, C. P., Tyra, J.,
Review. 2001: ACM. Kang, H. J., Nunnery, C., ...& Kim, Y. "
[2] Sen, S., & Wang, J. "Analyzing peer-to-peer Towards complete node enumeration in a peer-
traffic across large networks." IEEE/ACM to-peer botnet". In Proceedings of the 4th
Transactions on Networking (ToN), 12(2), 219- International Symposium on Information,
232.(2004). Computer, and Communications Security (pp.
[3] Yunhao, L., Xiao, L., & Ni, L. M. " Building a 23-34). ACM. (2009, March).
scalable bipartite P2P overlay network. Parallel [8] Kang, J., Zhang, J. Y., Li, Q., & Li, Z.
and Distributed Systems", IEEE Transactions "Detecting new P2P botnet with multi-chart
on, 18(9), 1296-1306.(2007) CUSUM. In Networks Security, Wireless
[4] Jones, M. B., Theimer, M., Wang, H., & Communications and Trusted Computing",
Wolman, A. " Unexpected complexity: 2009. NSWCTC'09. International Conference
Experiences tuning and extending CAN." on (Vol. 1, pp. 688-691). IEEE. (2009, April).
Submitted for publication. (2002). [9] Rossow, C., Dietrich, C. J., Bos, H., Cavallaro,
[5] Stoica, I., Morris, R., Karger, D., Kaashoek, M. L., van Steen, M., Freiling, F. C., &Pohlmann,
F., &Balakrishnan, H. " Chord: A scalable peer- N. "Sandnet: Network traffic analysis of
to-peer lookup service for internet applications". malicious software". In Proceedings of the First
Paper presented at the ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Building Analysis Datasets and
Computer Communication Review. (2001). Gathering Experience Returns for Security (pp.
[6] 78-88). ACM. (2011, April).
Saroiu, S., Gummadi, P. K., & Gribble, S. D. "A
Int. J. Advanced Networking and Applications 3487
Volume: 09 Issue: 04 Pages: 3477-3491(2018) ISSN: 0975-0290

[10] Nazario, J., &Holz, T. "As the net churns: Fast- comparison of two popular Peer-to-Peer
flux botnet observations. In Malicious and protocols". Universidade de Victoria, 11.
Unwanted Software", 2008. MALWARE 2008. (2000).
3rd International Conference on (pp. 24-31). [22] Saboori, E., &Mohammadi, S. "Anonymous
IEEE. (2008, October). Communication in Peer-to-Peer Networks for
[11] Wang, Y., &Vassileva, J. "Trust-based providing more Privacy and Security". arXiv
community formation in peer-to-peer file preprint arXiv:1208.3192. (2012).
sharing networks". In Proceedings of the 2004 [23] Burgess, M., &Canright, G. "Scalability of peer
IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on configuration management in partially reliable
Web Intelligence (pp. 341-348). IEEE Computer and ad hoc networks". In Integrated Network
Society. (2004, September). Management, 2003. IFIP/IEEE Eighth
[12] Rahbar, A. G. P., & Yang, O. "Powertrust: A International Symposium on (pp. 293-305). IEEE.
robust and scalable reputation system for trusted (2003, March).
peer-to-peer computing. Parallel and Distributed [24] Padmanabhan, V. N., Wang, H. J., & Chou, P. A.
Systems", IEEE Transactions on, 18(4), 460- "Resilient peer-to-peer streaming". In Network
473. (2007). Protocols, 2003. Proceedings. 11th IEEE
[13] Zhou, R., & Hwang, K. "Gossip-based International Conference on (pp. 16-27). IEEE.
reputation aggregation for unstructured peer-to- (2003, November).
peer networks". In Parallel and Distributed [25] Wouhaybi, R. H., & Campbell, A. T. "Phenix:
Processing Symposium, 2007. IPDPS 2007. Supporting resilient low-diameter peer-to-peer
IEEE International (pp. 1-10). IEEE. (2007, topologies". In INFOCOM 2004. Twenty-third
March). AnnualJoint Conference of the IEEE Computer
[14] Lou, X., & Hwang, K. "Proactive Content and Communications Societies(Vol. 1). IEEE.
Poisoning To Prevent Collusive Piracy in P2P (2004, March).
File Sharing" IEEE Transactions on Computers [26] Ganesan, P., Sun, Q., & Garcia-Molina, H.
TC 2008. (2008). "Yappers: A peer-to-peer lookup service over
[15] J. Hu and R. Klefstad, “Decentralized Load arbitrary topology". In INFOCOM 2003. Twenty-
Balancing onUnstructured Peer-to-Peer Second Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE
Computing Grids,”Proc. Fifth IEEEInt’lSymp. Computer and Communications. IEEE
Network Computing and Applications (NCA Societies (Vol. 2, pp. 1250-1260). IEEE. (2003,
’06), July 2006. March).
[16] Zhou, R., Hwang, K., &Cai, M. "Gossiptrust for [27] Tran, D. A., Hua, K. A., & Do, T. "Zigzag: An
fast reputation aggregation in peer-to-peer efficient peer-to-peer scheme for media
networks". Knowledge and Data Engineering, streaming". In INFOCOM 2003. Twenty-Second
IEEE Transactions on, 20(9), 1282-1295. Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer
(2008). and Communications. IEEE Societies (Vol. 2, pp.
[17] Antoniadis, P., & Le Grand, B."Incentives for 1283-1292). IEEE. (2003, March).
resource sharing in self-organized communities: [28] Castro, M., Jones, M. B., Kermarrec, A. M.,
From economics to social psychology". Rowstron, A., Theimer, M., Wang, H., &
In Digital Information Management, 2007. Wolman, A. (2003, April). An evaluation of
ICDIM'07. 2nd International Conference scalable application-level multicast built using
on(Vol. 2, pp. 756-761). IEEE. (2007, October). peer-to-peer overlays. In INFOCOM 2003.
[18] Mislove, A., Marcon, M., Gummadi, K. P., Twenty-Second Annual Joint Conference of the
Druschel, P., &Bhattacharjee, B. "Measurement IEEE Computer and Communications. IEEE
and analysis of online social networks". Societies(Vol. 2, pp. 1510-1520). IEEE.
InProceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCOMM [29] Ge, Z., Figueiredo, D. R., Jaiswal, S., Kurose, J.,
conference on Internet measurement(pp. 29-42). &Towsley, D. (2003, March). Modeling peer-
ACM. (2007, October). peer file sharing systems. In INFOCOM 2003.
[19] Yang, S. J., Zhang, J., Lin, L., & Tsai, J. J. " Twenty-Second Annual Joint Conference of the
Improving peer-to-peer search performance IEEE Computer and Communications. IEEE
through intelligent social search". Expert Societies (Vol. 3, pp. 2188-2198). IEEE.
Systems with Applications, 36(7), 10312-10324. [30] Van Ruitenbeek, E.; Sanders, W.H., "Modeling
(2009). Peer-to-Peer Botnets," Quantitative Evaluation
[20] Kourtellis, N., Finnis, J., Anderson, P., of Systems, 2008. QEST '08. Fifth International
Blackburn, J., Borcea, C., &Iamnitchi, A. Conference on , vol., no., pp.307,316, 14-17
"Prometheus: User-controlled P2P social data Sept. 2008 doi: 10.1109/QEST.2008.43
management for socially-aware applications". [31] Arai, B., Das, G., Gunopulos, D., &Kalogeraki,
In Middleware 2010 (pp. 212-231). Springer V. (2007). Efficient approximate query
Berlin Heidelberg. (2010). processing in peer-to-peer networks. Knowledge
[21] Howe, A. J. "Napster and Gnutella: a and Data Engineering, IEEE Transactions
Int. J. Advanced Networking and Applications 3488
Volume: 09 Issue: 04 Pages: 3477-3491(2018) ISSN: 0975-0290

on, 19(7), 919-933. [44] Gaeta, R., &Sereno, M. "Generalized

[32] Li, M., Yu, J., & Wu, J. (2008). Free-riding on probabilistic flooding in unstructured peer-to-
bittorrent-like peer-to-peer file sharing systems: peer networks". Parallel and Distributed
Modeling analysis and improvement. Parallel Systems, IEEE Transactions on, 22(12), 2055-
and Distributed Systems, IEEE Transactions 2062. (2011).
on, 19(7), 954-966. [45] Bao, X., Fang, B., Hu, M., &Xu, B.
[33] Das, K.; Bhaduri, K.; Kun Liu; Kargupta, H., "Heterogeneous search in unstructured peer-to-
"Distributed Identification of Top-l Inner peer networks". Distributed Systems Online,
Product Elements and its Application in a Peer- IEEE, 6(2). (2005).
to-Peer Network," Knowledge and Data [46] Zhao, B. Y., Huang, L., Stribling, J., Joseph, A.
Engineering, IEEE Transactions on , vol.20, D., &Kubiatowicz, J. D. "Exploiting routing
no.4, pp.475,488, April 2008 redundancy via structured peer-to-peer overlays".
[34] Zhou, R., Hwang, K., &Cai, M. "Gossiptrust for In Network Protocols, 2003. Proceedings. 11th
fast reputation aggregation in peer-to-peer IEEE International Conference on (pp. 246-257).
networks". Knowledge and Data Engineering, IEEE. (2003, November).
IEEE Transactions on, 20(9), 1282-1295. [47] Kumar, A., Merugu, S., Xu, J. J., Zegura, E. W.,
(2008). & Yu, X."Ulysses: a robust, low‐diameter,
[35] Chen, K., Hwang, K., & Chen, G. "Heuristic low‐latency peer‐to‐peer network". European
discovery of role-based trust chains in peer-to- transactions on telecommunications, 15(6), 571-
peer networks". Parallel and Distributed 587. (2004).
Systems, IEEE Transactions on, 20(1), 83-96. [48] Kourtellis, N., &Iamnitchi, A. "Leveraging Peer
(2009). Centrality in the Design of Socially-Informed
Peer-to-Peer Systems". (2013).
[36] Chen, H., Jin, H., Liu, Y., & Ni, L. M. [49] Weigle, E., Hiltunen, M., Schlichting, R.,
"Difficulty-aware hybrid search in peer-to-peer Vaishampayan, V. A., &Chien, A. A." Peer-to-
networks". Parallel and Distributed Systems, peer error recovery for hybrid satellite-terrestrial
IEEE Transactions on,20(1), 71-82. (2009). networks". In Peer-to-Peer Computing, 2006. P2P
[37] Li, D., Cao, J., Lu, X., & Chen, K. " Efficient 2006. Sixth IEEE International Conference
range query processing in peer-to-peer on (pp. 153-160). IEEE. (2006, September).
systems". Knowledge and Data Engineering, [50] Krishnan, R., Smith, M. D., Tang, Z., &Telang, R.
IEEE Transactions on,21(1), 78-91. (2009). "The impact of free-riding on peer-to-peer
[38] Ping Wang; Sparks, S.; Zou, C.C., "An networks" In System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings
Advanced Hybrid Peer-to-Peer of the 37th Annual Hawaii International
Botnet," Dependable and Secure Computing, Conference on (pp. 10-pp). IEEE. (2004,
IEEE Transactions on , vol.7, no.2, pp.113,127, January).
April-June 2010 [51] Castro, M., Druschel, P., Ganesh, A., Rowstron,
[39] Datta, S., Giannella, C. R., &Kargupta, H. A., & Wallach, D. S. "Secure routing for
"Approximate distributed k-means clustering structured peer-to-peer overlay networks". ACM
over a peer-to-peer network". Knowledge and SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, 36(SI),
Data Engineering, IEEE Transactions 299-314. (2002).
on, 21(10), 1372-1388. (2009). [52] Gupta, M., Judge, P., &Ammar, M. "A
[40] Datta, S., Giannella, C., &Kargupta, H. "K- reputation system for peer-to-peer networks".
Means Clustering Over a Large, Dynamic In Proceedings of the 13th international
Network". In SDM. (2006, April). workshop on Network and operating systems
[41] Hsiao, H. C., Liao, H., & Huang, C. C. support for digital audio and video (pp. 144-
"Resolving the topology mismatch problem in 152). ACM. (2003, June).
unstructured peer-to-peer networks". Parallel [53] Biersack, E. W., Rodriguez, P., &Felber, P.
and Distributed Systems, IEEE Transactions "Performance analysis of peer-to-peer networks
on, 20(11), 1668-1681. (2009). for file distribution". In Quality of Service in the
[42] Jin, X., Chan, S. H., Wong, W. C., &Begen, A. Emerging Networking Panorama (pp. 1-10).
C. "A distributed protocol to serve dynamic Springer Berlin Heidelberg. (2004).
groups for peer-to-peer streaming". Parallel and [54] Lehman, L. W., &Lerman, S. "Pcoord: Network
Distributed Systems, IEEE Transactions position estimation using peer-to-peer
on, 21(2), 216-228. (2010). measurements". In Network Computing and
[43] Furfaro, F., Mazzeo, G. M., &Pugliese, A. Applications, 2004.(NCA 2004). Proceedings.
"Managing multidimensional historical Third IEEE International Symposium on (pp.
aggregate data in unstructured P2P 15-24). IEEE. (2004, August).
networks". Knowledge and Data Engineering, [55] Basu, A., Fleming, S., Stanier, J., Naicken, S.,
IEEE Transactions on, 22(9), 1313-1330. Wakeman, I., &Gurbani, V. K. "The state of
(2010). peer-to-peer network simulators". ACM
Int. J. Advanced Networking and Applications 3489
Volume: 09 Issue: 04 Pages: 3477-3491(2018) ISSN: 0975-0290

Computing Surveys (CSUR), 45(4), 46. (2013). cs/0209028. (2002).

[56] Lua, E. K., Crowcroft, J., Pias, M., Sharma, R., [70] Graffi, K., Gross, C., Stingl, D., Hartung, D.,
& Lim, S. "A survey and comparison of peer-to- Kovacevic, A., & Steinmetz, R. " LifeSocial.
peer overlay network schemes". IEEE KOM: A secure and P2P-based solution for online
Communications Surveys and Tutorials, 7(1-4), social networks". In Consumer Communications
72-93. (2005). and Networking Conference (CCNC), 2011
[57] Becker, J. U., & Clement, M. "Dynamics of IEEE (pp. 554-558). IEEE. (2011, January).
illegal participation in peer-to-peer networks— [71] Cutillo, L. A., Molva, R., &Strufe, T. "Safebook:
why do people illegally share media A privacy-preserving online social network
files?." Journal of Media Economics, 19(1), 7- leveraging on real-life trust". Communications
32. (2006). Magazine, IEEE, 47(12), 94-101. (2009).
[58] Lu, J., &Callan, J. "Content-based retrieval in [72] Suk, William. "ANTHROPOLOGY OF ICT:
hybrid peer-to-peer networks." In Proceedings CELLULAR INTERNET, SOCIAL MEDIA,
of the twelfth international conference on MOBILE MONEY, DECENTRALIZED
Information and knowledge management (pp. ARCHITECTURE, BIG DATA." In 2015 Annual
199-206). ACM. (2003, November). Meeting. Aaa, 2015.
[59] Amad, M., Meddahi, A., &Aïssani, D. "Peer to [73] Maniatis, P., Roussopoulos, M., Giuli, T. J.,
peer networks management survey". arXiv Rosenthal, D. S., & Baker, M. "The LOCKSS
preprint arXiv:1203.3351. (2012). peer-to-peer digital preservation system". ACM
[60] Yang, M., & Yang, Y. "An efficient hybrid peer- Transactions on Computer Systems
to-peer system for distributed data (TOCS), 23(1), 2-50. (2005).
sharing". Computers, IEEE Transactions [74] Pouwelse, J. A., Garbacki, P., Wang, J., Bakker,
on, 59(9), 1158-1171. (2010). A., Yang, J., Iosup, A., ...& Sips, H. J.
[61] Maly, R. J., Mischke, J., Kurtansky, P., & "TRIBLER: a social‐based peer‐to‐peer
Stiller, B. "Comparison of Centralized (Client- system". Concurrency and Computation: Practice
Server) and Decentralized (Peer-to-Peer) and Experience, 20(2), 127-138. (2008).
Networking.Semester thesis", ETH Zurich, [75] Toninelli, A., Pathak, A., &Issarny, V. "Yarta: A
Zurich, Switzerland, 1-12. (2003). middleware for managing mobile social
[62] Yao, Z. "Understanding Churn in Decentralized ecosystems". In Advances in Grid and Pervasive
Peer-to-Peer Networks", (Doctoral dissertation, Computing (pp. 209-220). Springer Berlin
Texas A&M University). (2009). Heidelberg. (2011).
[63] El-Ansary, S., &Haridi, S. "An overview of [76] Shakimov, A., Varshavsky, A., Cox, L. P.,
structured P2P overlay networks." (2005). &Cáceres, R. "Privacy, cost, and availability
[64] Fletcher, G. H., Sheth, H. A., &Börner, K. tradeoffs in decentralized OSNs". In Proceedings
"Unstructured peer-to-peer networks: of the 2nd ACM workshop on Online social
Topological properties and search performance". networks (pp. 13-18). ACM. (2009, August).
In Agents and Peer-to-Peer Computing (pp. 14- [77] Kourtellis, N., Finnis, J., Anderson, P.,
27). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. (2005). Blackburn, J., Borcea, C., &Iamnitchi, A.
[65] Ioannidis, S., &Marbach, P. "On the design of "Prometheus: User-controlled P2P social data
hybrid peer-to-peer systems". ACM management for socially-aware applications".
SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation In Middleware 2010 (pp. 212-231). Springer
Review, 36(1), 157-168. (2008). Berlin Heidelberg. (2010).
[66] Ripeanu, M. "Peer-to-peer architecture case [78] Kourtellis, N., &Iamnitchi, A. " Inferring peer
study: Gnutella network". In Peer-to-Peer centrality in socially-informed peer-to-peer
Computing, 2001. Proceedings. First systems". In Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2P),
International Conference on (pp. 99-100). IEEE. 2011 IEEE International Conference on (pp.
(2001, August). 318-327). IEEE. (2011, August).
[67] Bellovin, S. "Security aspects of Napster and [79] Blackburn, J., Simha, R., Kourtellis, N., Zuo, X.,
Gnutella". In 2001 Usenix Annual Technical Ripeanu, M., Skvoretz, J., &Iamnitchi, A. "
Conference. (2001, June). Branded with a scarlet C: cheaters in a gaming
[68] Clarke, I., Sandberg, O., Wiley, B., & Hong, T. social network". In Proceedings of the 21st
W." Freenet: A distributed anonymous international conference on World Wide
information storage and retrieval system". Web (pp. 81-90). ACM.(2012, April).
In Designing Privacy Enhancing [80] Scellato, S., Noulas, A., Lambiotte, R.,
Technologies (pp. 46-66). Springer Berlin &Mascolo, C."Socio-Spatial Properties of
Heidelberg. (2001, January). Online Location-Based Social
[69] Ripeanu, M., Foster, I., &Iamnitchi, A. Networks". ICWSM, 11, 329-336. (2011).
"Mapping the gnutella network: Properties of [81] Kourtellis, N., Alahakoon, T., Simha, R.,
large-scale peer-to-peer systems and Iamnitchi, A., &Tripathi, R. " Identifying high
implications for system design". arXiv preprint betweenness centrality nodes in large social
Int. J. Advanced Networking and Applications 3490
Volume: 09 Issue: 04 Pages: 3477-3491(2018) ISSN: 0975-0290

networks". Social Network Analysis and applications to peer-to-peer systems".

Mining, 1-16. (2012). In Proceedings of the Thirtieth international
[82] Zhao, B. Y., Huang, L., Stribling, J., Rhea, S. conference on Very large data bases-Volume
C., Joseph, A. D., &Kubiatowicz, J. D. 30(pp. 444-455). VLDB Endowment. (2004,
"Tapestry: A resilient global-scale overlay for August).
service deployment".Selected Areas in [95] Zhang, C., Krishnamurthy, A., & Wang, R. Y.
Communications, IEEE Journal on, 22(1), 41- "Skipindex: Towards a scalable peer-to-peer
53. (2004). index service for high dimensional
[83] Stoica, I., Morris, R., Karger, D., Kaashoek, M. data". Department of Computer Science,
F., &Balakrishnan, H. "Chord: A scalable peer- Princeton University, New Jersey, USA, Tech.
to-peer lookup service for internet applications". Rep, 703-04. (2004).
In ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication [96] Chi, H., Zhang, Q., Jia, J., &Shen, X. “Efficient
Review (Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 149-160). ACM. search and scheduling in P2P-based media-on-
(2001, August). demand streaming service." Selected Areas in
[84] Foster, I., &Iamnitchi, A. " On death, taxes, and Communications, IEEE Journal on, 25(1), 119-
the convergence of peer-to-peer and grid 130. (2007).
computing". In Peer-to-Peer Systems II (pp. [97] Do, T. T., Hua, K. A., &Tantaoui, M. A. "
118-128). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. (2003). P2VoD: Providing fault tolerant video-on-demand
[85] Talia, D., &Trunfio, P. "Toward a synergy streaming in peer-to-peer environment".
between p2p and grids.Internet Computing", InCommunications, 2004 IEEE International
IEEE, 7(4), 96-95. (2003). Conference on (Vol. 3, pp. 1467-1472). IEEE.
[86] Zhao, S., Stutzbach, D., &Rejaie, R. (2004, June).
"Characterizing files in the modern gnutella [98] Shahid, Muhammad Alyas, and Muhammad
network: A measurement study". In Electronic Sharif. "Cloud Computing Security Models,
Imaging 2006 (pp. 60710M-60710M). Architectures, Issues and Challenges." SmartCR
International Society for Optics and Photonics. 5, no. 6 (2015): 602-616.
(2006, January). [99] Yiu, W. P., Wong, K. F., Chan, S. H., Wong, W.
[87] Backx, P., Wauters, T., Dhoedt, B., C., Zhang, Q., Zhu, W. W., & Zhang, Y. Q. "
&Demeester, P. "A comparison of peer-to-peer Lateral error recovery for media streaming in
architectures". In Eurescom Summit (Vol. application-level multicast". Multimedia, IEEE
2002). (2002, October). Transactions on, 8(2), 219-232. (2006).
[88] Saroiu, S., Gummadi, K. P., & Gribble, S. D. [100] Guo, Y., Suh, K., Kurose, J., &Towsley, D.
"Measuring and analyzing the characteristics of "P2Cast: peer-to-peer patching scheme for VoD
Napster and Gnutella hosts". Multimedia service". In Proceedings of the 12th international
systems, 9(2), 170-184. (2003). conference on World Wide Web (pp. 301-309).
[89] Gummadi, K. P., Dunn, R. J., Saroiu, S., ACM. (2003, May).
Gribble, S. D., Levy, H. M., &Zahorjan, J. [101] Jin, X., Cheng, K. L., & Gary Chan, S. H. "SIM:
"Measurement, modeling, and analysis of a Scalable island multicast for peer-to-peer media
peer-to-peer file-sharing workload". In ACM streaming". In Multimedia and Expo, 2006 IEEE
SIGOPS Operating Systems Review (Vol. 37, International Conference on (pp. 913-916). IEEE,
No. 5, pp. 314-329). ACM. (2003, October). (2006, July).
[90] Sen, S., & Wang, J."Analyzing peer-to-peer [102] Sharif, Muhammad, NasirMehmod Butt,
traffic across large networks". IEEE/ACM MudassarRaza, and Muhammad Arshad.
Transactions on Networking (ToN), 12(2), 219- "Distributed Virtual Disk Storage System."
232. (2004). Control Theory and Informatics 2 (2012): 17-23.
[91] Stutzbach, D., Rejaie, R., &Sen, S. [103] Sharif, Muhammad, Aisha Azeem, and
"Characterizing unstructured overlay topologies MudassarRazaWaqasHaider. "A Novel
in modern P2P file-sharing Wormhole Detection Technique for Wireless Ad
systems". Networking, IEEE/ACM Transactions Hoc Networks." International Journal of
on, 16(2), 267-280. (2008). Advanced Networking and Applications 3, no. 5
[92] Baset, S. A., &Schulzrinne, H. "An analysis of (2012): 1298.
the skype peer-to-peer internet telephony [104] Imran, Noreen, SamiaRiaz, AsmaShaheen,
protocol". arXiv preprint cs/0412017. (2004). Muhammad Sharif, and MudassarRaza.
[93] Tewari, S., &Kleinrock, L. "Analysis of search "COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LINK
and replication in unstructured peer-to-peer STATE AND DISTANCE VECTOR
networks". In ACM SIGMETRICS Performance ROUTING PROTOCOLS FOR MOBILE
Evaluation Review (Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 404- ADHOC NETWORKS." Science International
405). ACM. (2005, June). 26, no. 2 (2014).
[94] Ganesan, P., Bawa, M., & Garcia-Molina, H. " [105] Hussain, Khalid, AkhtabHussain, Muhammad
Online balancing of range-partitioned data with Sharif, and JunaidAhsenaliChaudhry.
Int. J. Advanced Networking and Applications 3491
Volume: 09 Issue: 04 Pages: 3477-3491(2018) ISSN: 0975-0290

"Throughput Incorporated Cluster Head Election Networks." International Journal of Advanced

Technique for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks." Networking and Applications 7, no. 3 (2015):
Journal of Computational and Theoretical 2752.
Nanoscience 13, no. 1 (2016): 736-742. [117] Taylor, Ian J., and Andrew Harrison. From P2P
[106] Amjad, Muhammad, Muhammad Sharif, and grids to services on the web: evolving
Muhammad Khalil Afzal, and Sung Won Kim. distributed communities. Springer Science &
"TinyOS-new trends, comparative views, and Business Media, 2008.
supported sensing applications: A review." IEEE [118] Ou, Zhonghong. "Structured peer-to-peer
Sensors Journal 16, no. 9 (2016): 2865-2889. networks: Hierarchical architecture and
[107] Hussain, Altaf, Faisal Azam, Muhammad Sharif, performance evaluation." Dissertation (2010).
MussaratYasmin, and SajjadMohsin. "A Survey
on ANN Based Task Scheduling Strategies in
Heterogeneous Distributed Computing Authors Profiles
Systems." Nepal Journal of Science and
Technology 16, no. 1 (2016): 69-78. SalehaMasood, Lecturer, Department of Computer Science,
[108] Shah, Jamal Hussain, Muhammad Sharif, and CIIT, Wah Campus, received her Master of Computer Sciences
MudassarRaza. "Wireless USB Home Security and MS (CS) degree from COMSATS Institute of Information
System using Internet Technology." Research Technology, WahCantt, is now serving as Lecturer, Department
Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and of Computer Science, CIIT, Wah Campus. Her areas of interest
Technology 7, no. 7 (2014): 1377-1380. are Image Processing, Computer vision and Medical Imaging.
[109] Raza, Mudassar, Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad
Sharif, and WaqasHaider. "A survey of MuhammadAlyaShahid received his Master in
password attacks and comparative analysis on Computer Science degree in 2002. He received
methods for secure authentication." World his MS (CS) from COMSATS Institute of
Applied Sciences Journal 19, no. 4 (2012): 439- Information Technology, WahCantt with
444. specialization in Image Processing. He is into teaching field
[110] Sharif, Muhammad, MaryumMurtaza, from 1998 till date. Currently he is serving as a Lecturer of
WaqasHaider, and MudassarRaza. "Priority Computer Sciences in POF Institute of Technology, WahCantt.
based congestion control routing in wireless His research interests are Image Processing, Multimedia
mesh network." International Journal of Processing, and Computer Networks & Security.
Advanced Networking and Applications 3, no. 3
(2011): 1147. Muhammad Sharif, PhD, Associate Professor
[111] Ikram, Fahad, Muhammad Sharif, and COMSATS Institute of Information
MudassarRaza. "Protecting Users against Technology, WahCantt received his MSc in
Phishing Attacks." In 7th CIIT Workshop on Computer Science from Quaid-e-Azam
Research in Computing. 2008. University, Islamabad. He received his MS(CS) and PhD(CS)
[112] Sharif, Muhammad, and AmanUllah Khan. from COMSATS Islamabad with specialization in Image
"Benchmarking of PVM and LAM/MPI Using Processing. He is into teaching field from 1995 till date. His
OSCAR, Rocks and Knoppix Clustering research interests are Image Processing, Computer Networks &
Tools." World Academy of Science, Security, Parallel and Distributed Computing (Cluster
Engineering and Technology International Computing) and Algorithms Design and Analysis.
Journal of Computer, Information Science and
Engineering Vol 1 (2007). MussaratYasmin, Ph.D.is Assistant Professor
[113] Ahsen, Faraz, Khalid Hussain, NylaKhadam, at COMSATS, WahCantt Pakistan. Her area of
Muhammad Sharif, and Noor Zaman. specialization is Image Processing. She is in
"Identification of a Lossy Channel in Wireless the education field since 1993. She has so far
Mesh Network using Conservation of 30 research publications in IF, SCI and ISI
flow."Journal of Information & Communication journals as well as in national and international conferences. A
Technology Vol 1 (2007): 60-70. number of undergraduate projects are completed under her
[114] Murtaza, Muhammad, Muhammad Sharif, supervision. She is currently supervising 5 Ph.D. (CS) students.
MudassarRaza, and AmanUllah Khan. "A She is a gold medallist in MS (CS) from IQRA University,
Unified Model for Computer Threat Protection Pakistan. She is continuously being awarded COMSATS
(UMCTP)." research productivity award since 2012. Her research interests
[115] Masood, Anum, Muhammad Sharif, include Neural Network, Algorithms design and Analysis,
MussaratYasmin, and MudassarRaza. Machine Learning and Image processing.
"Virtualization tools and techniques:
Survey." Nepal Journal of Science and
Technology 15, no. 2 (2015): 141-150.
[116] Shahid, Muhammad Alyas, and Aisha Azeem.
"Disseminating Traffic Information in Vehicular
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.