On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:48 PM, jiangxingfeng 36340 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
IMHO this is up to the DHT algorithm (e.g. CAN vs Chord) and the number of replicas we have. -- Victor Pascual Ávila _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
