Re: [decentralization] Re: p2p working group/standards
- Thanks for the comments.
> You mention the fact that Napster has a centralized directory asI totally agree.. i think our point was not that Napster does not
> being a problem for scalability. Actually, napster is scalable
> *because* it has a centralized metadata directory. Even in the
scale but rather that beyond a point it is expensive to scale
a centralized solution (rack space, fat pipes, heavy duty servers etc).
On the other hand, solutions like Gnutella and Freenet can scale
without requiring any up front investment.
This is just a point of differentiation and is
not meant as a criticism of Napster-style p2p systems (accompanied by a
sound business model, expensive infrastructure solutions make
sense; for example Akamai and Inktomi)
>True, one would have to design a keyword search mechanism over our
> Finally, the hashtable approach in a query is only going to allow
> lookups that are an exact match (which is why it's appropriate for
indexing system. This is a problem that needs to be addressed in a system
like Freenet too, and is one we're currently working on.
- Justin Chapweske said:
> ... switch to SHA-1.Probably going to SHA-1 isn't too big of a problem. I'll bring it up with
> The biggest group that I havn't yet talked to about this is the Gnutella
> guys, but I'm sure they'd be into it as well. Any Gnutellians on the
those that I know. Interestingly, there are ways to add file hashes within
the existing protocol specifications - it should even be backwards