Re: [p2pi] [p2prg] Mythbustering P2P traffic localization

[Song Haibin <[e-mail]>]

Hi Arnaud,

>section 8.2
>it is not clear what you mean in "as shown in [Le Blond], the right
>balance of randomness and
>  locality depends on the P2P algorithm". We did not explore several P2P
>protocols, but only BitTorrent.
>We show that BT is extremely robust to high locality (as long as there
>is enough randomness within each ISP).
>We cannot conclude for any other P2P protocol.

I guess if locality will weaken a swarm depends on in which proportion the
pieces of the resource the local peers have; and the balance of the cotent
pieces distribution among these local peers.

>"On the other hand, P2P systems not adopting the tit-for-tat approach
>  (e.g. the eDonkey network) should not be damaged by locality-based"
>It is not clear to me. Peer selection (tit-for-tat like choking algo in
>BT) is not the only one factor of efficiency, there is also piece
>diversity.
>Edonkey/emule also use rarest first (but a less efficient peer selection
>algorithm). Therefore, as locality adversely impact
>piece diversity, my bet is that Edonkey/emule will suffer from locality.

What do you mean with "less efficient" by saying "Edonkey/emule also use
rarest first (but a less efficient peer selection algorithm)"?

Regards,
Song Haibin