Sorry, forgot to answer 2nd paragraph... On 9/10/07, Ryan Barrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > honestly, this is probably the best way that *you* can spend your time. you > have an idea, but as you've said, not much knowledge of the field. do some due > diligence and read up on the current state of the art in p2p - DHTs, flooding, > superpeer networks, gossip, NAT traversal, etc. the p2p-hackers archive has > links to survey-style papers that provide good overviews of the field.
One of the things that I want to avoid is Decentralized Hash Tables. I understand the general idea and I understand that in a flat topology it's the only way to go but I think it's a messy approach. Sorry if I'm kinda killing some "gods" of the trade but sometimes an outside looker has a better perspective... Well I've been told so anyway :) NAT traversal is something that I need to address once it goes public. My first idea is to get it to work on a hassle-less environment and then plugin all the firewall punching stuff when needed. As for the rest, if my implementation is robust enough I don't think scale will matter since one is not in the DHT land. Connections are limited and small by design. One node has an identity in a predefined 3 dimensional world and not in a flat DHT. This can all be crap but it makes sense to me. Please correct me. Gustavo Carreno > -Ryan > > -- > http://snarfed.org/ > _______________________________________________ > p2p-hackers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers > -- Gustavo Carreno --- http://batxman.wordpress.com < If you know Red Hat you know Red Hat, If you know Slackware you know Linux > _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
