[e2e] Overly Overlay; Peer to peer is commonplace

[demir]

Sorry to add again. As a result "assumtions" are inevitable cause "facts"
might change.

Alper K. Demir


On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, demir wrote:

> To me, whatever the system (smart, ad hoc, self organised, wireless,
> peer2peer) is can not breake the "end2end argument in system design." As a
> result, Any implementation satisfies the demand/QoS/requirement/complexity
> in its domain is suffucient because there has to be a universal constant
> somewhere in any system (We know that QxE=C as a QoS rule). I call this
> from zero to infinite complexity/choice/constant (C). The system can be
> called "macro" or "micro" such as macroeconomy, microeconomy. Otherwise,
> there is always oscillations from truth/right (1) to false/wrong (0) or
> vice versa...
>
> Alper K. Demir, PhD student
> The University of Southern California
>
> > >In message <5.1.0.14.2.20020101103822.02b81908 at mail.reed.com>, "David P. Reed"
> > >typed:
> > >
> > > >>Wireless networks, especially densely scaled mobile wireless networks, do
> > > >>not behave like "wires without wires" or "fibers without fibers".  Topology
> > > >>is not naturally hierarchical in its interconnection, for example.  So
> > > >>"hierarchically derived" topological addresses are just plain wrong.  More
> > > >>relevant, though again as naive as GUID-based routing, is geotemporal routing
> > >
> > >
> > >the similarity of the recent parallel work on
> > >smart, ad hoc, self organised, wireless network routing
> > >and
> > >smart ad hoc, self organised peer2peer systems,
> > >has been remarked on a few times...
> >
> > But the similarity shouldn't be exaggerated.
> >
> > Christian H. just commented that many of the ad hoc protocols scale
> > O(n) or worse (where n is the number of nodes or even number of
> > flows).  This approach is quite reasonable for an interesting class of
> > ad hoc net problems, but it's quite a different constraint than the
> > general Internet where scale in numbers of nodes is central.
> >
> > By contrast, many peer-to-peer systems that push scale operate on the
> > assumption that "all nodes are pretty close to each other".  For
> > example, FreeNet and Chord both basically hash content to nodes
> > largely irrespective of node's network location.  For nodes operating
> > in the Internet, this assumption is quite reasonable.  But I think one
> > would not be happy trying to apply this to ad hoc networks.
> >
> > More similar to ad hoc networking are some of the peerish overlay
> > network work.  For example, the Resilent Overlay Network paper that
> > appeared at SOSP last year which showed reasonable performance
> > improvement due to link-state routing with frequent updates but
> > explicitly didn't try to scale past 10s of nodes.
> >
> >    -John Heidemann
> >
>
>