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
>
