Bruce, > Well, I'm one of those " Alto guys ".
So am I. >Alto will answer queries > about > proximity, but the question of randomness of node IDs is well > outside > Alto's scope. Yes. But I think alto's information can be a guidance for node id assignment. At least it is feasible for some scenarios, e.g. where the operator deploys all the peers. >This working group will have to decide whether, as I > > suspect, randomness of node IDs is an important property to preserve. Shall we allow more options here? Best Regards, Song Haibin > Bruce > On Dec 2, 2008, at 11:13 AM, songhaibin 64081 wrote: > > > Bruce, > > > > I agree with you that pastry has proximity property, and can > achieve > > efficent routing. But for leafset, peer must choose leafset > nodes > > that have closest IDs with it. It doesn't have a list of > candidate > > peers to choose from as the routing table entries do. SO, by > > randomly assigned IDs, it will make the resource records > > mainternance between leafset nodes(when join or leave, or > replicate > > happens often) not efficient because they waste the network hops. > > > > If node IDs have network proximity property, it will make the > > routing message which gets closer and closer to the destination > > ID(e.g. Chord or Pastry), also gets closer and closer to the > > destination node in the network topology. It is a nature effect. > > > > We could discuss with the ALTO guys and see what in their mind. > > > > I think we should allow different options for node id assignment > > > according to different scenarios. > > > > my two cents > > Song Haibin > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Bruce Davie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2008 11:39 pm > > Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] P2PSIP ID and physical location > > To: songhaibin 64081 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: P2PSIP WG <[email protected]> > > > >> Song, > >> it is certainly true that proximity is often used in DHTs, but > >> not, as > >> far as I know, for the assignment of node IDs. It is used, for > >> example, to select among many possible candidate nodes for > >> inclusion > >> in the routing table. But, as others have already said, the > >> randomness > >> of note IDs is important for the security and robustness of a DHT. > >> You > >> can have efficient routing without giving up the randomness of > >> note ID > >> assignment. See, for example, Pastry. > >> http://www.freepastry.org/pubs.htm > >> Bruce Davie > >> On Dec 2, 2008, at 10:11 AM, songhaibin 64081 wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Ekr, > >>> > >>>> > >>>> It's not clear to me why it's desirable for nodes which are > >>>> geographically close to be close in the overlay topology.y > >>>> > >>>> -Ekr > >>> > >>> P2P networks are teemed with dynamic nodes. When a peer leaves > >> the > >>> overlay, it will transfer the stored resource records to a node > >>> which has a close node ID. From the perspective of an ISP's > >> network, > >>> making P2PSIP node IDs with proximity property will reduce the > >>> network hops when data transfer happens. > >>> > >>> Besides that, I think overlay maintenance messages will also > >> take > >>> less network hops if most neighbors have close node IDs. If node > >> ID > >>> has proximity property, it will help for the peer selection when > >> > >>> there are a list of peers providing the same resource. > >>> > >>> I think we can find some papers describing the proximity for > >> DHTs. I > >>> agree with Bruce that there are many considerations when > >> assigning > >>> node id. > >>> > >>> Best Regards, > >>> Song Haibin > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> At Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:26:56 +0100, > >>>> Xianghan Zheng wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> [1 <text/plain; ISO-8859-1 (7bit)>] > >>>>> Hello, > >>>>> Is someone considering the mapping between the P2PSIP ID and > >>>> physical > >>>>> location. I think it is necessary to think about it although it > >>>> is not > >>>>> trivial and might cause some security problem. > >>>>> > >>>>> In the draft > >>>>> "http://www.p2psip.org/drafts/draft-licanhuang-p2psip- > >>>> subsetresourcelocation-00.txt", > >>>>> However, the peer ID is formed as domain name. Is that conflict > >>>> with the > >>>>> concept that the ID should 128/160 bit integer? Is it possible > >>>> that > >>>>> each peer in one domain assigned similar identity? Any > >>>> suggestions? > >>>>> Thank you. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best Regards, > >>>>> Xianghan Zheng > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> [2 xianghan_zheng.vcf <text/x-vcard; utf-8 (base64)>] > >>>>> begin:vcard > >>>>> fn:Xianghan Zheng > >>>>> n:Zheng;Xianghan > >>>>> org:;Information and Communication Technology > >>>>> adr:;;;Grimstad;;4879;Grimstad > >>>>> title:PHD Studnet > >>>>> tel;work:+47 3725 3441 > >>>>> tel;cell:+47 91664693 > >>>>> version:2.1 > >>>>> end:vcard > >>>>> > >>>>> [3 <text/plain; us-ascii (7bit)>] > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> P2PSIP mailing list > >>>>> [email protected] > >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> P2PSIP mailing list > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > >>>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> P2PSIP mailing list > >>> P2PSIP@ is well outside Alto'ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
