Dear Venugopalan, dear Emin, Please excuse my email. I got your paper as PDF and assumed that it was a current paper. You did in fact represent the state of P2P networks in 2003 correctly.
Please accept my apology. Best wishes, Arne Am Dienstag, 5. August 2014, 15:18:08 schrieb Arne Bab.: > Dear Venugopalan, dear Emin, > > I read your paper on Beehive[1], and while it sounds impressive, the > description of Freenet and Gnutella in the introduction and the related work > as unstructured networks does not reflect current versions of the networks. > > Gnutella 0.6 and onwards has two structured components (the first 2 hops and > the last two hops) with one unstructured hop in between. For reference see > Dynamic Querying and Intra-Ultrapeer QRP. Intra-Ultrapeer QRP (nowadays > rather called bloom-filter-sharing) directly affects the routing and reduces > the cost to approximately O(log N), while Dynamic Querying only affects the > network cost of searching for popular content. See [2] or [3]. > > Freenet on the other hand uses a small-world structure which generally > provides O(log N) lookup along with strong caching which significantly > reduces the lookup time for popular content. > > Both Gnutella and Freenet provide the properties of hard structured networks > with an adaptive approach: The routing is approaching structured routing via > dynamic optimizations. > > It would be nice if you could fix these inaccuracies. For Gnutella you can do > so by specifying that your description applies for Gnutella 0.4, which used a > pure flooding approach and was already deprecated in 2004. > > For Freenet you could reference the paper from Roos (2014)[4] which showed > that while Freenet assumes a structured lookup, it’s real structure was only > partly structured (due to churn and optimization skewing from local requests). > > Still Beehive could be useful for Freenet, because we’ve long been planning > to add a constant bandwidth mode, in which times of inactivity are used to > spread content proactively. Beehive looks like it would provide a nice base > for that. For additional notes on this mode, see [5]. > > While Freenet does not use prefix routing, but instead a simple > location-distance metric, both methods are easy to map into each other. > > Best wishes, > Arne > > [1]: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/people/egs/papers/beehive.pdf > [2]: > http://web.archive.org/web/20120722140739/http://rakjar.de/gnufu/index.php/GnuFU_en#Network_model:_Intra-ultrapeer_QRP > [3]: http://draketo.de/inhalt/krude-ideen/gnufu-en.pdf > [4]: https://freenetproject.org/papers/roos-pets2014.pdf > [5]: https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=3578 > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > [email protected] > https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl -- Ein Würfel System - einfach saubere Regeln: - http://1w6.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
