> Let me try parsing this another way. > If the Service location is just a normal lookup, returning normal > responses, then it clearly needs no support from the P2P layer we > are > defining. Right. If the standard service name method works in all cases, there is no need to develop new methods. But in some cases, this method has some shortcomings: 1. if too much peers providing the same service, and also publish the information to the responsible peer fo the service-id gotten by hashing the standard service name. So the responsible peer has to store so much <key, value> pair;
2. the other shortcoming is if the service is a popular service, all query will go to the responsible peer. It may overload the responsible peer. > If pure random probes suffice, then that's enough. Maybe we need collect some experiemental data to see whethere random probes could work in most cases. I mean, if the service providers could be got within two or three transactions, IMHO, it is a reasonable latency. _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
