Hi,
you are right, the draft should include a table summarizing the main
characteristics - pros and cons. In a matter of fact, it is already
included in the new version of the draft (which I was not able to update to
the IETF database due to technical problems).
We are planning to extend the draft with more detailed feature/cost
analysis.
-Erkki
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, Jouni Mäenpää wrote:
Hi,
I think this draft provides a nice summary of different load balancing
models. One thing that might be good to add to the next revision is a
table summarizing the pros and cons of each model. You could also
consider the additional load some of the models place on a central
enrollment server that may be used by the overlay (e.g., if peers need
to obtain new Node-IDs to relocate themselves).
Regards,
Jouni
Erkki Harjula wrote:
Hi all,
We have submitted a survey draft on different technology options for
load balancing in structured P2P networks (including P2PSIP). The draft
provides a survey of the existing and proposed load balancing
mechanisms, categorizes them into four fundamental models, and briefly
analyzes the main characteristics of each fundamental model. The goal is
to provide background information on different possible load balancing
options for P2PSIP.
The draft can be found at
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-harjula-p2psip-loadbalancing-survey-00.txt.
Please accept our apologies for the unfinished layout (for some reason,
the submission tool did not allow us to update the draft with an
improved version).
Comments are welcome!
Thanks,
-Erkki
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
