Saying that the server to server communications is "peer to peer" is to stretch definitions to breaking point. It's no more P2P than email(*) or XMPP.
Peer to peer is (imo) when end user systems are all directly communicating. From the point of view of an IDS, yes, a P2P system is a bit nastier to track, as there are many inbound and outbound connections from end-user systems to arbitrary numbers of other end-user systems. In the case of Wave (or rather, XMPP) it's server-to-server. (*) and yes, I am aware some marketing folks call email "peer to peer". These people are, um, what's the word -- idiots. On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 11:59, Jeremiah O'neal<[email protected]> wrote: > > That's a very interesting thing you bring up Phil and you're right. > > When someone sets up a wave server and clients connect everything is > operating in a client server architecture. That is all the clients > connect to the server and the server handles the data coming in and > going out. From an end client all they're seeing is the information > from the wave and the end client can also send commands out to create > waves, add participants so on. At this current time there is no real > way to allow clients to connect to the server. In my previous post I > explain how I as a client connect to the server through SSH and in > fact if I wanted to I could create many SSH enabled logins on my > server and allow many people to connect to the server. > > On the other hand we have a server to server architecture and that > does use P2P. Essentially the way that works is if I want to send a > wave to purser then I would start out as a client connected to my > server using SSH and then I'd control the server by adding purser to a > wave. The wave server is then going to tell my XMPP server (which is > openfire) to connect to pursers server. The way it knows that it's > going to connect to pursers server is because of the URL after @. In > my case, I'm [email protected] therefore if you send a wave > from your server (i.e, [email protected]) to me, your XMPP server is > going to make the connection to my server and that would establish my > server and your server as a P2P network. > > On Aug 29, 10:41 pm, Phil Wayne <[email protected]> wrote: >> thxs james, jeremiah >> >> thought I heard Lars mention p2p on the demo video. >> >> read the up on the wave >> architecturehttp://www.waveprotocol.org/draft-protocol-spec >> (2.5) and learnt about XMPP's stanza's. negates my IDS concern. >> >> On Aug 29, 7:35 pm, Phil Wayne <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Typically IP packets ~64 bytes raise an alarm and typically indicate >> > virus activity on a sub network. >> >> > Character by character transmission is great and no impact on IDS even >> > better. >> >> > As I understand it, wave is based on P2P architecture and I would >> > suggest growth out there might be impacted in the event IDS or other >> > equivalent systems are rendered useless. >> >> > Anyone have any feedback about the impact of the wave protocol on IDS >> > systems? > > > -- Anthony Baxter, [email protected] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave Protocol" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
