[e2e] Overly Overlay; Peer to peer is commonplace

[demir]

To me, whatever the system (smart, ad hoc, self organised, wireless,
peer2peer) is can not breake the "end2end argument in system design." As a
result, Any implementation satisfies the demand/QoS/requirement/complexity
in its domain is suffucient because there has to be a universal constant
somewhere in any system (We know that QxE=C as a QoS rule). I call this
from zero to infinite complexity/choice/constant (C). The system can be
called "macro" or "micro" such as macroeconomy, microeconomy. Otherwise,
there is always oscillations from truth/right (1) to false/wrong (0) or
vice versa...

Alper K. Demir, PhD student
The University of Southern California

> >In message <5.1.0.14.2.20020101103822.02b81908 at mail.reed.com>, "David P. Reed"
> >typed:
> >
> > >>Wireless networks, especially densely scaled mobile wireless networks, do
> > >>not behave like "wires without wires" or "fibers without fibers".  Topology
> > >>is not naturally hierarchical in its interconnection, for example.  So
> > >>"hierarchically derived" topological addresses are just plain wrong.  More
> > >>relevant, though again as naive as GUID-based routing, is geotemporal routing
> >
> >
> >the similarity of the recent parallel work on
> >smart, ad hoc, self organised, wireless network routing
> >and
> >smart ad hoc, self organised peer2peer systems,
> >has been remarked on a few times...
>
> But the similarity shouldn't be exaggerated.
>
> Christian H. just commented that many of the ad hoc protocols scale
> O(n) or worse (where n is the number of nodes or even number of
> flows).  This approach is quite reasonable for an interesting class of
> ad hoc net problems, but it's quite a different constraint than the
> general Internet where scale in numbers of nodes is central.
>
> By contrast, many peer-to-peer systems that push scale operate on the
> assumption that "all nodes are pretty close to each other".  For
> example, FreeNet and Chord both basically hash content to nodes
> largely irrespective of node's network location.  For nodes operating
> in the Internet, this assumption is quite reasonable.  But I think one
> would not be happy trying to apply this to ad hoc networks.
>
> More similar to ad hoc networking are some of the peerish overlay
> network work.  For example, the Resilent Overlay Network paper that
> appeared at SOSP last year which showed reasonable performance
> improvement due to link-state routing with frequent updates but
> explicitly didn't try to scale past 10s of nodes.
>
>    -John Heidemann
>