Re: [mmox] OGP scalability concerns

"Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)" <infinity@lindenlab.com> Thu, 02 April 2009 00:29 UTC

Return-Path: <infinity@lindenlab.com>
X-Original-To: mmox@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmox@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE5BD3A6A28 for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.369
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.369 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.086, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id igDRTwIaFHdx for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:29:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tammy.lindenlab.com (tammy.lindenlab.com [64.154.223.128]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE10B3A69FA for <mmox@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:29:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from regression.lindenlab.com (regression.lindenlab.com [10.1.16.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by tammy.lindenlab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8E003DBC46D; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <3D04F9F4-007F-401C-A91A-5C8C13BC93D3@lindenlab.com>
From: "Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)" <infinity@lindenlab.com>
To: Charles Krinke <charles.krinke@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f0b9e3410904011701i2ccb03d4r1b48d33cfe3988ea@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-10-479504313
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:30:25 -0700
References: <62BFE5680C037E4DA0B0A08946C0933D7B692E1B@rrsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com> <CD02023C-3E7B-4E76-8429-11035C827E53@lindenlab.com> <f0b9e3410904011701i2ccb03d4r1b48d33cfe3988ea@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
Cc: "mmox@ietf.org" <mmox@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mmox] OGP scalability concerns
X-BeenThere: mmox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Massively Multi-participant Online Games and Applications <mmox.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox>, <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox>
List-Post: <mailto:mmox@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox>, <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:29:26 -0000

Charles... i _think_ we're in radical agreement. Some might read that  
first sentence as meaning, "you're not fully interoperable unless you  
can teleport from second life to wonderland to world of warcraft to  
every other virtual world in existence." But the second sentence seems  
to imply you're really just talking about "second life-like" systems.  
If you mean the former... ouch... that's going to be difficult (though  
i'm sure JW would disagree.) If the latter, then yes, you're right...  
we're not fully interoperable (in the OGP sense) until you can  
teleport from a linden controlled server to a OSgrid controlled?  
federated? server, and then turn around and go back the other way.

On Apr 1, 2009, at 5:01 PM, Charles Krinke wrote:

> To me, interop implies a full handoff of an avatar from one virtual  
> world to another.
>
> 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) <infinity@lindenlab.com 
> > 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@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmox mailing list
> mmox@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>
>
>
> -- 
> Charles Krinke
> OpenSim Core Developer
> OSGrid Director