Re: [decentralization] Dynamic Networking
- On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 08:03:58AM +0100, Julian Bond wrote:
> complicated boundary proxies; which are the usual solutions. TheIs there a pointer to something that describes what those techniques
> problem of course is that the code is proprietary even if some of the
> techniques are fairly well understood now.
"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.
It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." --- Thomas Jefferson
"Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company." -- Mark Twain
-- Eric Hopper (hopper@... http://www.omnifarious.org/~hopper) --
- Wes Felter <wesley@...> wrote:
>I mentioned this a while back, and people complained that Windows 9x,A quick google turned up http://www-rp.lip6.fr/teredo/ Teredo for BSD.
>Mac OS X, and Linux don't support Teredo, so you have no hope of your
>app "just working" on multiple platforms.
So maybe the situation is improving.
Another quick reading of the MS description pointed at IETF drafts such
ISTM this still doesn't solve the discovery and initial connection
problem by itself. Teredo speaks of clients, servers and crucially,
relays. The Kazaa/Skype innovation was to decentralise the relays such
that any directly connected servent could potentially be a relay. In
Kazaa it's a conscious choice. In Skype, it's hidden and completely
automatic. I think Skype has also decentralised the naming service for
I haven't been able to find any independent technical analysis of Skype.
So you'll have to draw conclusions from their own page
Julian Bond Email&MSM: julian.bond at voidstar.com
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/
M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173 T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 01:47:15PM -0500, Justin Chapweske wrote:I can't believe that after all these years I am going to step back into
>>In order to provide dynamic networking at the URI naming level, you
>>simply need to switch a portion of your URIs to non-DNS-based URIs.
>>There is no need to switch all of your URIs to be location
>>independent, and indeed in Swarmcast we freely mix static HTTP URIs
>>with location independent UUID URIs.
the name versus location debate but I suppose I am just kind of nostalgic.
Rather than write a long email I've written up a little essay. Please
excuse the fact that it is barely edited:
>>Location independent URIs, by their very nature, imply support forThese features all hold regardless of whether the URI has a syntax
>>both an anycast model, as well as a single-end-node or point-to-point
>>model. The only difference between these two cases is the number of
>>authoritative sources that can provide the service associated with the
>>URI in a secure fashion. In an anycast model, a number of nodes can
>>authoritatively serve a URI, and in a point-to-point model, only a
>>single end node can authoritatively serve a URI.
starting with "http://" or "uuid:" You can choose to use an anycast
model for HTTP URIs, you can have multiple authoritiative sources for
HTTP URIs (haven't you ever used Google's cache as more authoritiative
than the referenced domain?) etc.
> I mentioned this a while back, and people complained that Windows 9x,There is port of Teredo for Free BSD (http://www-rp.lip6.fr/teredo/) so
> Mac OS X, and Linux don't support Teredo, so you have no hope of your
> app "just working" on multiple platforms.
I guess getting it working on OS X at least shouldn't be *too* much
Peter Ferne, +44 (0)7970 942 261, properdigital@...
- On Saturday, Apr 24, 2004, at 21:52 America/New_York, Paul Prescod
> These features all hold regardless of whether the URI has a syntaxFor a name that isn't an address, what advantage does a name that
> starting with "http://" or "uuid:" You can choose to use an anycast
> model for HTTP URIs, you can have multiple authoritiative sources for
> HTTP URIs (haven't you ever used Google's cache as more authoritiative
> than the referenced domain?) etc.
starts with http:// have?
- Lucas Gonze wrote:
> On Saturday, Apr 24, 2004, at 21:52 America/New_York, Paul Prescod1. The ability to _become_ an address months or years after the name has
>>These features all hold regardless of whether the URI has a syntax
>>starting with "http://" or "uuid:" You can choose to use an anycast
>>model for HTTP URIs, you can have multiple authoritiative sources for
>>HTTP URIs (haven't you ever used Google's cache as more authoritiative
>>than the referenced domain?) etc.
> For a name that isn't an address, what advantage does a name that
> starts with http:// have?
been deployed. For instance, XML namespaces have started to sprout RDDL
documents years after they were first let out into the wild.
2. The ability to point at its own documentation: "The URI you have
dereferenced does not have any machine readable content but you may be
curious about what that URI means. Here's what I know about it." This is
also very common in the XML world: where there isn't a RDDL document at
the end of a URI, there is often an HTML document.
I know I've plugged UUIDs into Google to figure out what they mean, but
that's a hit or miss proposition. Dereferencing HTTP URIs is much more
reliable. Having the opportunity to do both is ideal. e.g. you can
either dereference the HTML 4 namespace URI or Google it.