Subject: [P2Prg] Re: P2prg digest, Vol 1 #85 - 2 msgs

From: Abrar Bin Yousuf <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:09:24 -0800 (PST)

> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:27:56 +0000
> From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
> To: p2p-irtf <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: [P2Prg] Proposed research tracks ...
> 
> Hi Bill,
> 
> I'd like to propose a (small) subgroup working on
> the implications of 
> IPv6 for P2P systems and architectures.
> 
> This would include work on evaluating existing
> mechanisms for IPv4
> dependencies, analysis of where IPv6 (and in theory
> the removal of
> NAT) is beneficial (and just how beneficial),
> interoperability 
> of IPv4 and IPv6 in P2P systems, and
> usage/implications of IPv6-specific 
> mechanisms including (for example) MIPv6, Privacy
> Extensions or CGAs.
> 
> If you think this would be useful, I'd be happy to
> coordinate that
> sub-activity.   You may of course feel all this is
> covered in existing
> proposed groups, albeit in a fragmented way.
> 
> Tim

Count me in. I think that the idea is a good one as we
have to prepare to move to ipv6 since it is already
being put to production slowly but surely. 

rgds,
Abrar

> 
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 09:41:47PM -0800, Bill
> Yeager wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Here is our first proposal for research tracks in
> our RG. Please 
> > comment and/or volunteer so we can get this show
> on the road (-:
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Bill and Bobby
> > 
> > -------
> > 
> > In all of the research tracks below the overriding
> consideration is 
> > that we do not reinvent any wheels. Care must be
> taken to look for 
> > possible relationships with, or extrapolations of
> ideas in current 
> > RFC's.
> > 
> > o Overview of current P2P systems
> > 
> > 	A short term effort to give us a baseline of
> current P2P system 
> > behavior. What is there that is relevant
> >          to the following research subgroups.
> > 
> > 	Subgroup leaders: Bill and Bobby
> > 
> > o P2P Overlay Infrastructure
> > 
> > 	What are the requirements of such an
> infrastructure to guarantee 
> > 	both end-to-end communication between
> > 	any two peer nodes independently of the
> underlying real 
> > infrastructure? What will the UUID's be for such
> > 	peer nodes? Will they resemble IP.V6 addresses
> for example? Can they 
> > be created in such a way as to
> > 	make mobility implicit without any special
> changes to the discovery 
> > and routing protocols we use?
> > 
> > 	Subgroup leaders: Bill Yeager, Jeff Altman (Is
> there another 
> > 	volunteer out there?)
> > 
> > o P2P Mobility Device Requirements
> > 
> > 	Mobile devices have both capability and
> infrastructure differences 
> > that must be addressed so that they can
> > 	interoperate will an Internet-wide p2p network.
> These special 
> > requirements will be outlined, and carefully
> >     	examined in this research track. The results
> of this effort will 
> > clearly influence the other tracks discussed below
> > 	since mobile devices must play in any P2P space
> that our research 
> > ultimately defines.
> > 
> > 	Subgroup leader: Frank-Uwe Andersen
> > 
> > o Meta-Data Strategies
> > 
> > 	Meta-data descriptions are at the core of content
> distribution, and 
> > lookup in a P2P network. Thus, addressing various
> strategies
> > 	for such descriptions is critical early on in our
> research. Happily, 
> > Sam Joseph has enthusiastically volunteered to led
> this effort.
> > 
> > 	Subgroup leader: Sam Joseph
> > 
> > o Namespaces:  managed versus unmanaged
> > 
> > 	Ad-hoc vrs controlled name spaces:
> > 
> > 	A managed namespace is controlled by (at least)
> one authority who is
> > 	responsible for delegating rights to subspaces
> within the managed
> >  	space.  In an unmanaged space, any principal can
> bind to any name,
> > 	and an external protocol (e.g. cryptographic
> certificates, or trust
> >  	inference) is used for resolving specific
> references.
> > 
> >  	It is not clear which model is more appropriate
> for the P2P domain;
> >  	clearly, it is attractive to have the IETF (or a
> similar body) "own"
> >  	some part of the P2P namespaces (much like
> today's DNS), and have the
> >  	usual name delegation etc.  However, the P2P
> model may be 
> > decentralized
> >  	by definition, and thus, both approaches are
> appropriate, and should
> > 	be addressed in this research track.
> > 
> > 	Subgroup leader:  To be determined.
> > 
> > o Routing and routing primitives
> > 
> > 	Everything we know about p2p routing and how it
> relates to the IETF 
> > routing protocols:
> > 
> > 	Initially, a survey of current P2P routing
> techniques is a 
> > 	requirement for this research
> >          track. The feeling is that any overlay
> network we might chose 
> > should be routing protocol
> 
=== message truncated ===

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/

_______________________________________________
P2prg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2prg