Hi Mike, Of course you are correct about enterprise networks, or anyone else who would hire a an administrator for their network. I am totally opposed to a rouge, corporate policy-subverting employee would would download software without permission, especially one that would expose a service that endangers their workplace. This is indeed the bane of system and network admins.
However, as an end user of the AT&T network, at my home, here in Austin, in which I am the administrator, and who wants only to connect to other such non-enterprise users, I think that your objections do not apply. I want to be like Skype, the popular non-scum Internet phone service that also performs NAT hole punching (a.k.a. NAT traversal). I hope that Texai software eventually will be on the list of approved corporate software. After all I plan for it to be friendly and useful in a compelling way. It will be free to use even for commercial purposes provided that the non-proprietary knowledge and skills it learns are shared for the common wealth. To address your issue with P2P being blocked by ISP, you could allow those nodes with public server capability to proxy connections to client-only nodes. I know that sounds like undue pain, but this is exactly the kind of modular flexibility that distributed agents should be able to work out in response to varying network conditions I accept your advice, and actually had some experience at Cycorp with the Sun JXTA protocol that does this. but I would far prefer to perform direct P2P. Public relays are not only slower, they will be more expensive. AT&T charges more than double for a small range of static IP addresses, and the setup is off the beaten path for most end-users who might offer relay services. Relays could become performance bottlenecks too. For an initial deployment I would like to try direct P2P unless you have a better objection, or maybe you could just clarify the remarks you already made, given my own clarification herein. Thanks for the great comment. I do really do not want to waste time with the wrong P2P design decision. -Steve Stephen L. Reed Artificial Intelligence Researcher http://texai.org/blog http://texai.org 3008 Oak Crest Ave. Austin, Texas, USA 78704 512.791.7860 ----- Original Message ---- From: Mike Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Sunday, May 4, 2008 9:41:16 PM Subject: Re: [agi] organising parallel processes On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Stephen Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matt (or anyone else), have you gotten as far as thinking about NAT hole > punching or some other solution for peer-to-peer? "NAT hole punching" has no solution because it's not a problem you can fix. If I administrate the border security for my network and I do not want your protocol running, I will block the port it uses. If you dynamically change ports to avoid this, you'll find your software blacklisted with a slew of scumware that is actively removed from the computers it infests. If you are welcome within the network, it is much less hassle (for everyone) if you properly ask for access and use bandwidth intelligently. To address your issue with P2P being blocked by ISP, you could allow those nodes with public server capability to proxy connections to client-only nodes. I know that sounds like undue pain, but this is exactly the kind of modular flexibility that distributed agents should be able to work out in response to varying network conditions (my $0.02) ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?&; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
