ISP's have been very clear that they regard their network maps as being
proprietary for many good reasons. The approach that P4P takes is to have an
intermediate server (which we call an iTracker) that processes the network
maps and provides abstracted guidance (lists of IP prefixes and
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 5:30 AM, Michael Holstein
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ISP's have been very clear that they regard their network maps as being
proprietary for many good reasons. The approach that P4P takes is to have an
intermediate server (which we call an iTracker) that processes the
Won't this approach (using a ISP-managed intermediate)
ultimately end up being co-opted by the lawyers for the
various industry interest groups
and thus be ignored by the p2p users?
To bring this back to network operations, it doesn't much
matter what lawyers and end users do. The bottom
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Mike Gonnason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This idea is what I am concerned about. Until the whole copyright mess
gets sorted out, wouldn't these iTracker supernodes be a goldmine of
logs for copyright lawyers? They would have a great deal of
information about
Or, everybody can put their heads together, make something that
works for ISPs operationally, and give the end users faster
downloads. The whole question is how to multicast content over
the Internet in the most cost effective way.
This will work as long as the optimization strategy is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 24, 2008, at 6:48 AM, Keith O'Neill wrote:
The iTrackers just helps the nodes to talk to each other in a more
efficient way, all the iTracker does is talk to another p2p tracker
and
is used for network topology, has no caching or file
Interesting discussion. Comments below:
On Apr 24, 2008, at 11:59 AM, Eric Osterweil wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 24, 2008, at 6:48 AM, Keith O'Neill wrote:
The iTrackers just helps the nodes to talk to each other in a more
efficient way, all the iTracker
On Apr 23, 2008, at 2:17 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Alexander Harrowell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Christopher Morrow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It strikes me that often just doing a reverse lookup on the peer
address
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Laird Popkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 23, 2008, at 2:17 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Alexander Harrowell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Christopher Morrow
[EMAIL
I would certainly view the two strategies (reverse engineering network
information and getting ISP-provided network information) as being
complimentary. As you point out, for any ISP that doesn't provide network data,
we're better off figuring out what we can to be smarter than 'random'. So
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Laird Popkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would certainly view the two strategies (reverse engineering network
information and getting ISP-
provided network information) as being complimentary. As you point out, for
any ISP that doesn't
provide network data,
11 matches
Mail list logo
