Re: Celsius 451 -the melting point of Cat-5 Re: network topology

On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Major Variola (ret) wrote: > [Yes I screwed this up ---ISPs do commonly block incoming 80. But Yes, some do, but not all of them. Mine doesn't. Some cable modem ISPs in fact encourage people running servers at home, offering static IPs and extra bandwidth. One would think th

Re: Celsius 451 -the melting point of Cat-5 Re: network topology

At 04:51 PM 3/29/02 -0500, Steve Furlong wrote: >"Major Variola (ret)" wrote: >> To resist 1. you can use port 80, which ISPs can't block without losing >> most >> 'legitimate' utility for the masses :-) Or you use randomly varying >> ports and have to do more door-knocking. [Yes I screwed this

Re: Celsius 451 -the melting point of Cat-5 Re: network topology

"Major Variola (ret)" wrote: > > I've been thinking about noncentralized self-organizing network > topologies since George > posted his query. First, there are several problems that any P2P > network faces in the future > hostile world: > > 1. ISPs blocking its ports > > 2. The "entry

Re: network topology considerations

On 30 Mar 2002 at 12:31, Eugene Leitl wrote: > If you consider the constraints of the physical layer (crossbars don't > scale, and latency limits bidirectional acknowledged protocols to short > links), you'll that doesn't leave you with too many choices. > > Is this really true for peoples' ho

Re: Celsius 451 -the melting point of Cat-5 Re: network topology

On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Major Variola (ret) wrote: > 3. Slow connections, slow machines Thanks to gamers, ping latencies are getting better. ADSL is a pain, but even 128 kBit upstream can be useful, if aggregated from multiple sites. Queries for distributed P2P search engines should use ACKless

Re: Celsius 451 -the melting point of Cat-5 Re: network topology

On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Greg Broiles wrote: > This sounds like a bad assumption to me - both because it seems > unworkable given the size of the IPv4 address space (without even > thinking about IPv6), and because randomly probing other machines isn't > likely to be allowed (or successful) in a more

Re: network topology considerations

On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'd like to discuss what the considerations are for > network topology. The particular topology > I mentioned (which I've since been convinced > isn't really a cube or torus after all) was Torus only comes into equation

Re: network topology

On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Ben Laurie wrote: > Surely not - in a torus you have loops of nodes, whereas here we have > each node directly connected to 99 others in each segment. It may be a > bit like a torus, but it isn't one. Spose it might be a set of > interconnected 100-dimensional toruses (my he

Re: network topology

Draw a picture. If you don't have a place to post it I can arrange a page gratis. You take three nodes. Arrange them in a ring/triangle. Each node branches to 295(?) other nodes (making it a member of three 100 node subnets - somehow these numbers don't add up). It's not clear if those are a '

Re: CDR: Re: network topology

James B. DiGriz wrote: > In terms of practical considerations, network diameter is 3, and minimum > connectivity is 8 (if you count routes with common links) at the 3 hop > level, which you'd probably want to use, with a fallback to longer > routes on retries. Unless you're trying to discourage

Re: gnutella's problems (Re: network topology)

Adam Back writes: > Contrary to what article [2] claims FastTrack/Kazza really does blow > Gnutella away, the supernode concept with high performance nodes > elected to be search hubs makes all the difference. Gnutella last I > tried it was barely functional for downloads, ~95% of downloads > fai

Re: network topology

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 27 Mar 2002 at 22:43, Eugene Leitl wrote: > > >>On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> >>>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

Re: gnutella's problems (Re: network topology)

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Adam Back <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >And gnutella is not able to resume a transfer that dies part way >through which is very bad for download reliability. FastTrack/Kazza >(but no longer Morpheus since the Kazza / Morpheus fall-out) on the >other hand can resume,

Re: gnutella's problems (Re: network topology)

On 28 Mar 2002 at 2:18, Adam Back wrote: > And gnutella is not able to resume a transfer that dies part way > through which is very bad for download reliability. FastTrack/Kazza > (but no longer Morpheus since the Kazza / Morpheus fall-out) on the > other hand can resume, and in fact do multiple

Re: network topology

there is research from all sorts of people in this area. It falls under the term "Ad-hoc networking". Google "Ad-hoc mobile network" and perhaps add in "routing" for more specificity. You have a different cost metric for the communications between nodes than the mobile people do - and they have

Re: network topology

there is research from all sorts of people in this area. It falls under the term "Ad-hoc networking". Google "Ad-hoc mobile network" and perhaps add in "routing" for more specificity. Many efficient schemes have been devised in theory. You have a different cost metric for the communications betw

gnutella's problems (Re: network topology)

On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 04:56:32PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I got the impression (maybe wrong) that guntella as it exists is > something much worse than a tree, that connections are > pretty much haphazard and when you send out a query it reaches > the same node by multiple paths, and tha

Re: network topology

On Wednesday, March 27, 2002, at 01:08 PM, [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 dicta

Re: network topology

On 27 Mar 2002 at 22:43, Eugene Leitl wrote: > On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > 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

Re: network topology

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 ru

Re: network topology

At 10:43 PM +0100 on 3/27/02, Eugene Leitl wrote: > For myself, I used to call virtual high-dimensional lattice topologies > hypergrids, or n-grids. "Geodesic" is shorter. ;-). Cheers, RAH -- - R. A. Hettinga The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation

Re: network topology

On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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? You don't mean someth

network topology

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