> It is not a good choice to have Node ID contain network info. Why not?
-Haibin > > Regards, > > Gengyu > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bruce Davie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "songhaibin 64081" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "P2PSIP WG" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 7:30 AM > Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] P2PSIP ID and physical location > > > > Well, I'm one of those " Alto guys ". Alto will answer queries > about > > proximity, but the question of randomness of node IDs is well > outside > > Alto's scope. This working group will have to decide whether, as > I > > suspect, randomness of node IDs is an important property to > preserve.> > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
