Re: [mmox] OGP scalability concerns

Charles Krinke <> Thu, 02 April 2009 00:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C6B13A6B48 for <>; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:00:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.352
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.352 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.069, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s5vepP3s7ArJ for <>; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9F433A69A9 for <>; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id d11so275588and.4 for <>; Wed, 01 Apr 2009 17:01:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=RgrUgawxHFrTpypWVDleehW3BVoiw/pj7r3yM0PWAgw=; b=ANeJIC1VEmZ8BtK9G5xX5kVdVQPyfMOqTOJdLSDaWOD+zqW7yrlFkHo6stuZCR4LPL H724vcw9LQjZk8v7Ton0i3gKmB8Th/Jw8lmukW5isQyYYc1voRxO31W2GolPbwOEesFl vXwOhwAL/Mv3Gv6LSt8a/6q3nyi0ZEOLUBklg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=cIt5VMCSM9CuiXa5JqDLuHLbfm0At8o15N6WarRAZGzGd6YtYnza9vZ1zroZzkVEu1 pB/vKf3vgffR/DPGM0w0HTp4U60TWtOgSeTieItby4fVH8DW9HDFKctep+APzuVHL1gT VZudN6KBh3dmW38r7GltYomF2XI7s+5UOIq/U=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id 14mr7633876ank.89.1238630474209; Wed, 01 Apr 2009 17:01:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:01:14 -0800
Message-ID: <>
From: Charles Krinke <>
To: "Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e642dd646c5c90046687211c
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [mmox] OGP scalability concerns
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Massively Multi-participant Online Games and Applications <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:00:15 -0000

To me, interop implies a full handoff of an avatar from one virtual world to

I can appreciate OGP offering one half of this in its current form in a
teleport from a SecondLife type grid to an OpenSim type grid. But, we also
need to consider how a citizen of an OpenSim grid can teleport to a
SecondLife grid as well.

In the case of OpenSim grids, we have a UserServer as opposed to an
AgentDomain, but they offer a similar set of services.

So, from the MMOX viewpoint, we could perhaps get there from here if we were
to consider the fact that each side of this teleport needs to be treated in
an equal and sovereign manner.

To me, interop between grids is more of a "border crossing & customs"
paradigm. That is, each grid may have its own border crossing rules for exit
and its own customs rules for entry and each is sovereign in its own right.
That is, there is no overwhelming AgentDomain that controls all teleports
between all grids, but rather an AgentDomain is a paradigm for one
particular grid, or in the SecondLife case, for a few SecondLife grids all
under the control of one corporate personality.

Charles Krinke
OpenSim Core Developer
OSGrid Director

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity) <> wrote:

> On Apr 1, 2009, at 1:56 PM, Hurliman, John wrote:
>  A few days ago I posted an e-mail highlighting my concerns with the
>> architecture of OGP. I'm not sure if there was an implicit agreement from
>> the OGP authors or if the e-mail was lost in the flood. I'm reposting in a
>> new thread because I want to make sure I have a proper understanding of the
>> architecture.
>>  *       Indirectly, it highlights that the Agent Domain model does not
>>> have a solution to the problem of accessing worlds with which there is
>>> no trust agreement.  People will want to enter arbitrary worlds, and
>>> therefore that restriction is inadequate.
> i would guess the solution would be to have a promiscuous agent domain that
> has a "i will trust all worlds" settings. i think this is a limitation of
> the implementation, not the architecture.
>  *       There will be millions of worlds in an Internet-scale metaverse,
>>> which makes the concept of interop through trust agreements far too
>>> narrow.  Trust loses its meaning entirely when scaled to millions,
>>> becoming mere paperwork or "security theater".
> +1. what's your suggestion?
>> This is, in my opinion, the fundamental flaw in OGP. Explicit trust maps
>> (whitelists) work great when IBM wants to define policy to connect to the
>> Linden Lab grid, but has no meaning and no hope of scaling when you talk
>> about defining trust for millions of simulation grids and millions (or at
>> least thousands) of identity providers. This is the primary reason that
>> Intel and many members of the OpenSimulator/OpenMetaverse community have not
>> considered OGP as a strong proposal for virtual world interoperability. If
>> this understanding is not accurate, it would be helpful if an OGP author
>> could step in and clear up the confusion.
>> John
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmox mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> mmox mailing list

Charles Krinke
OpenSim Core Developer
OSGrid Director