On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Jeff Rose wrote:
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:08:57 +0100
From: Jeff Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Peer-to-peer development. <[email protected]>
To: Peer-to-peer development. <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] clustering
It seems like people are always putting arbitrary restrictions on p2p systems
and simulations in terms of connectivity, but is this really necessary?
Unless you are trying to use NATed nodes (assume we can punch or route
through a neighbor),just about any pair of computers on the internet can be
neighbors. In essence the internet is a fully connected overlay graph.
The problem is that "just about every" and "every" node being able to
communicate are not quite the same thing. Indeed, it's precisely the
difference in these two assumptions which actually raises a lot of
problems when actually deploying DHTs in the wide-area.
We recently presented a short paper at WORLDS '05 which discusses the
real-world problems that arises from non-transitivity in Internet routing:
A can speak to B, B can speak to C, but A can't speak to C
as we all independently discovered from running CoralCDN, OpenDHT, and i3.
(Firewalls and NATs are actually an easier problem that this, as they
express routing constraints much more symmetrically.)
http://www.scs.stanford.edu/mfreed/docs/ntr-worlds05.pdf
I sent an email about this paper to this mailing list a few months ago,
and my apologies for the repeat. However, as our main audience for this
paper was actually meant to be the hacker community, as opposed to the
academic one, I thought it bears re-mention.
--mike
-----
www.michaelfreedman.org www.coralcdn.org
_______________________________________________
p2p-hackers mailing list
[email protected]
http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
_______________________________________________
Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences:
http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
