Alen Peacock wrote: > On 8/21/07, Alexander Pevzner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am very curious about how this fits in with the "p2p algorithm" > problem that Skype is pointing at -- if no client upgrade was needed, > and since supernodes are clients, this seems to once again indicate > centralized bottleneck rosources. I suppose that "classical" p2p > includes centralized resources (as in napster), and so code running on > these centralized components could be considered part of the p2p > algorithm... or is that too much of a stretch? Part of the p2p algorithm may be running at server. For example I have an impression that Skype NAT traversal quality slowly improves over a time, though I still use the very old 1.2 client for Linux. My client cannot improve its ability of symmetric NAT prediction - somebody does it for them. _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
