Small World Networks.
The Kevin Bacon Game. 6 Degrees of Freedom. The Internet is somewhere around 17/18, I use 20 for estimates of scale. If you'd like to partake in a wireless - distributed processing experiment of this sort... http://open-forge.org The idea is to get a Plan 9 backbone running with distributed process and file resources at the nodes. Each node would be distant from the others. We have two nodes in Austin and one in New York. We're working on Raleigh, N. Carolina, one potential in Kansas, and two in Cali. Each local node would become involved in the local 'guerrilla network' scene. It is supported through a tit-for-tat approach to access. More info on Plan 9... http://plan9.bell-labs.com No references available at the moment, but there's been a lot of neat work the last few years on hyper-dimensional networks. The most common variety is a 4-D cube. The model that I use is the 'Spiney Sea Urchin' model. Each node has a lot of short range connections, and a few long range connections. It would be perfectly permissible to raise that to another level and add a directed dimensionality to it. For example force each node to have the same number of connections as the number of edges meeting at a vertex on a 4-D cube. For reading, a good intro, Small Worlds: The dynamics of networks between order and randomness D.J. Watts ISBN 0-691-00541-9 On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I've been thinking a little lately about network topologies > and peer-to-peer. What reading I've done seems to indicate that > most networks either have no organizational structure to them > at all or have some sort of dictated hierarchy. But it's > possible to have quite a lot of organization without anything like > a hierarchy. > > Here's a simple example of what I'm talking about: > > I've got a network of 1 million nodes, each of which has > an address 0-999999. For now, we won't ask how one goes about > attaining an address. The network is divided into "clusters" > of 100 and "superclusters" of 10,000. I'm assuming there aren't > any persistent connections. Imagine my nodes address is 123456. > Imagine I wanted to query all the nodes in the network. > I would directly query all the nodes in my cluster > (all those with addresses 1234xx), one node in each cluster in my > supercluster (for example, I'd query all nodes with addresses of the > form 12xx56) and one node in each supercluster other than my > own (for example, all nodes of the form xx3456). > So I'd query 300 nodes directly (297 for the persnickety), > the 100 nodes in the other cluster would each have to make 100 > second generation queries, and the 100 nodes I contact in the > other superclusters would each have to make 100 second generation > queries > leading to third generation queries. > > Of course in practice I would have to make a lot more queries, > because some of the nodes would be unavailable. But the point is, > assuming all the nodes which are running forward queries properly, > I should only have to actually talk to 300 nodes as described > above and, more importantly, none of the nodes should ever be > subjected to a dupliacte query from me. > > Note that there's no hierarchy here, all nodes are treated equally. > Node 129956 is sort of acting as a "gateway" for me to > cluster 1299xx, but only for me (and 10000 other people). > > Of course, this kind of structure could be made with any number of > "levels" of clustering. > > I don't recall ever having read of this type of structure before, > but it seems so obvious that I'm sure it's been discussed before. > So is there a name for it? Does anyone use it? has it been > shown to be utterly worthless? > > Thanks, > George > -- ____________________________________________________________________ There is less in this than meets the eye. Tellulah Bankhead [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------
