Gengyu, I am very clear of what you said, even years ago. But I don't mean node id must be generated by IP address here. I think it could be generated by referring to the network topology/policy, by taking the topology/policy info that ALTO server provided into account.
Best Regards, Haibin Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Skype: alexsonghw >-----Original Message----- >From: Wei Gengyu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:15 PM >To: songhaibin 64081 >Cc: Bruce Davie; P2PSIP WG >Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] P2PSIP ID and physical location > > > >The following is personal answer to the quesiotn "It is not a good choice to >have Node ID contain network info." > >1) Node ID is an identifier. > Node ID is used to identify an entity at application layer. > The Node ID should not changed during communications. > >2) IP address may change. > Suppose the Node ID contains an IP address, the IP address may change >during commincation. > e.g. a moving node (mobile terminal). > >3) Cross-layer generation process. > If Node ID is defined as an identifier of application layer, > the generation process is the duty of application layer. > If Node ID contains IP address, the generation process will be an >cross-layer work. > >4) Binding Node ID and IP address > Binding a Node ID and an IP address is easier than cross-layer work. > And the concept or idea of Binding is not new. > But it is required to define how to bind a Node ID with an network info. > >Gengyu > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "songhaibin 64081" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Wei Gengyu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: "Bruce Davie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "P2PSIP WG" <[email protected]> >Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 10:51 AM >Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] P2PSIP ID and physical location > > >> >>> 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
