Subject: RE: Descriptive discovery mechanisms (Was: RE: [P2Prg] Intro)

From: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:47:35 -0500

>the biggest drawback of a DHT is that the identifers need to 
>be known a priori, as well as the mapping of identifiers to 
>what is being identified.

also,

 o 
o
o
o
o
o

_______________________________________________
P2prg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2prg

---

From: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:47:35 -0500

also,

 o 
o
o
o
o
o

---

From: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:56:19 -0500

sorry for the previous mail ...

also,

 o  not all P2P groups can form a structured topology
 o  lack of proper support for complex queries
 o  Robustness with Untrusted Participants
 o  DHT abstraction for satisfying a broad range of applications
 o  effectively coping with flux of nodes
 o  interface seems so generic

yes, you can see lot of fix to walk around the above drawbacks 
recently( IPTPS, Hotnets papers.) But, still other P2P formation 
does more cleverly than DHT. For example, guntella does a better
job at supporting mass based file sharing (than DHT systems.)
We need something between structured and unstructured nature.

---

From: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:56:19 -0500

also,