Subject: [P2PSIP] P2PSIP ID and physical location

From: "xianghan.zheng" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:12:28 +0200

Hello,
Is there some proposal that suggest the physical closed peers will have
the similar identifier? I think this is necessary. Somebody have some
suggestion?

Best Regards,
Xianghan Zheng
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

---

From: Bruce Lowekamp <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:54:33 -0400

There's been a lot of research on the relationship between overlay
topology and physical network topology.  I would start with Pastry and
go from there.

At a high level, there's a tradeoff between optimizing performance by
ensuring that physically close peers are close in the overlay and
optimizing fault tolerance by minimizing information loss when a network
partition occurs (by ensuring that data replicas are not close in the
physical topology).

Bruce

xianghan.zheng wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:58:43 -0500

> topology and physical network topology.  I would start with Pastry and

For a good overview on the relationship between the overlay topology
and underlay reality, you may want to scan the survey draft we
published for the ALTO work during the Dublin IETF:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hilt-alto-survey-00

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
WWW:   http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/bell-labs
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip