Subject: Re: [P2Prg] Definition of p2p

From: "Bert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 16:41:29 -0700 (PDT)

On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 16:14:28 +0200, Valentin Mesaros wrote:
> We came up with a possible definition of a P2P system that I thought
> you
> might be intrested to know about. Here it is:
> 
> A Peer-To-Peer system is a distributed system based on resource
sharing
> by direct exchange
> between nodes and which has at least the following properties:
> - Decentralization: no single centralized coordination nor
> administration;
> - Scalability: the system size can grow arbitrarily while keeping the
> system performance acceptable;
> - Adaptation: the system adapts to frequent changes in content and
> load;
> - Self-organization: despite frequent arrival and voluntary departure
> of
> nodes, (nearly) optimal configurations emerge without manual
> intervention; 
> - Fault-tolerance: the impact of node/communication failures on the
> overall system is minimized;
> - Equal functionality: each node can play the role of client, server,
> router and cache;
> - Mobility: nodes do not have fixed IP addresses.

While each of these properties are often desirable in p2p systems for
a variety of reasons, by making them mandatory for the p2p label, 
you're excluding pretty much every real, working system that most
people refer to as p2p without hesitation (e.g. Napster/Seti@HOME
which are centrally coordinated, and Gnutella which has scalability
limitations).

Perhaps the right level of abstraction for a def. of p2p would be
end-user level, not the algorithmic/implementation level.  One of the
things I've found really striking & unique about p2p systems is the
empowerment they endow on their participants. This empowerment has a
variety of forms, e.g. being able to flout antiquated restrictions on
how we listen to music, being able to contribute compute resources to
interesting causes, attaining true anonymity, etc.  Basically being
able to manage one's own data/personal communications/compute
resources on much better terms than what was available in the past.  

Too fluffy, I know, but it beats falling into the peerier-than-thou
trap. 

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

---

From: Bill Yeager <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 12:14:25 -0700

Hi Bert,

Your points are well taken. We cannot be religious, and P2P may be 
totally ad-hoc, or very centralized, or somewhere in between. I've 
worked with David Anderson of SETI and his team, and know David pretty 
well.

SETI is looking for a less centralized way to redistribute calculations 
that may terminate on one node, and can then be continued on another. 
We've discussed this thoroughly, and he likes P2P. They are super busy, 
and, well, it is not on their current agenda. I plan on pointing David 
to our research group when we get rolling in Sept.

Also, it is clear that Valentin's thoughts are good ones. Just need 
tweaking. To be honest I like this definition:

Charter

Peer-to-Peer (P2P) is a way of structuring distributed applications 
such that the individual nodes have symmetric roles. Rather than being 
divided into clients and servers each with quite distinct roles (such 
as Web clients vs. Web servers), in P2P applications a node may act as 
both a client and a server. P2P systems are in general deployable in an 
ad-hoc fashion, without requiring centralized management or control. 
They can be highly autonomous, and can lend themselves to anonymity.

Etc ...
---
Here, we tried very hard to be neutral.

More on this soon,

` Bill

---

From: "Raymond Gao" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:01:29 -0500

Another thing we can discuss is how P2P's service resolution & routing model
compares to the DNS (domain name server) model. -Ray
  -----Original Message-----
  From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Bill
Yeager
  Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 2:14 PM
  To: Bert
  Cc: [email-masked]
  Subject: Re: [P2Prg] Definition of p2p

  Hi Bert,

  Your points are well taken. We cannot be religious, and P2P may be totally
ad-hoc, or very centralized, or somewhere in between. I've worked with David
Anderson of SETI and his team, and know David pretty well.

  SETI is looking for a less centralized way to redistribute calculations
that may terminate on one node, and can then be continued on another. We've
discussed this thoroughly, and he likes P2P. They are super busy, and, well,
it is not on their current agenda. I plan on pointing David to our research
group when we get rolling in Sept.

  Charter

  Peer-to-Peer (P2P) is a way of structuring distributed applications such
that the individual nodes have symmetric roles. Rather than being divided
into clients and servers each with quite distinct roles (such as Web clients
vs. Web servers), in P2P applications a node may act as both a client and a
server. P2P systems are in general deployable in an ad-hoc fashion, without
requiring centralized management or control. They can be highly autonomous,
and can lend themselves to anonymity.

  Etc ...
  ---

  More on this soon,

  ` Bill

    sharing

      by direct exchange

---

From: Bill Yeager <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:39:26 -0700

Hi Ray,

If you read a little further in the charter, then you will see that 
this is also there:

To this end, the research group also emphasizes the following near-term 
goals: classifying the P2P problem space (both currently, and as it 
evolves) into those problems for which there are existing solutions and 
those for which solutions require longer-term development; developing 
descriptive model(s) of peer-node organization whose interpretation can 
be applied to these solutions; articulating the scope as to what sort 
of P2P applications the models encompass and what sort they do not;  
exploring interfaces to IETF protocols to realize the models;

We can look at DNSEXT to see if in fact what you mention below can be 
incorporated in an extended DNS.

Bill

On Sunday, August 10, 2003, at 07:01 PM, Raymond Gao wrote:

> Another thing we can discuss is how P2P's service resolution & routing 
> model compares to the DNS (domain name server) model. -Ray
>