[p2prg] RGLC review for draft-kamei-p2p-experiments-japan-06
"Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com> Mon, 18 June 2012 21:53 UTC
Return-Path: <vkg@bell-labs.com>
X-Original-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B301421F86CE for <p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:53:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vgFwlpD3JrzG for <p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1049021F86CB for <p2prg@irtf.org>; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.10]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q5ILrM2a026844 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:53:22 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail-ce2.ndc.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q5ILrMUi025595 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:53:22 -0500
Received: from shoonya.ih.lucent.com (shoonya.ih.lucent.com [135.185.237.229]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id q5ILrL8W007338; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:53:21 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <4FDFA4A7.3090807@bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:59:03 -0500
From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com>
Organization: Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Hilt, Volker (Volker)" <volker.hilt@bell-labs.com>, stefano previdi <sprevidi@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.10
Cc: "p2prg@irtf.org" <p2prg@irtf.org>
Subject: [p2prg] RGLC review for draft-kamei-p2p-experiments-japan-06
X-BeenThere: p2prg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Peer-to-Peer Research Group <p2prg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/p2prg>, <mailto:p2prg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/p2prg>
List-Post: <mailto:p2prg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p2prg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2prg>, <mailto:p2prg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 21:53:26 -0000
Volker, Stefano: In response to your email on the list for reviewing draft-kamei-p2p-experiments-japan-06 [1], I am submitting the following review of the draft. In summary, I think that the draft has the potential to document, for archival purposes, the early work on ALTO-like systems and trace the evolution of ALTO. But it needs a lot of editorial and grammatical work. Ideas and explorations in the draft need to be described more clearly and the results explained in more detail. Below is an in-depth summary of the changes that will be required on the draft. MAJOR: - S1: "Several proposals have been made to build an overlay network that takes account of the information about the lower layer network." May be a good idea to list some references, or a survey of this work. - S2.1, second paragraph: I am not sure I understand the impact of this paragraph. I *think* what you are trying to say is something like the following: Each P2P file sharing application has a unique protocol and none of them have a large market share therfore making it hard to effectively control. - S2.2, first paragraph: perhaps you meant "delay-sensitive" instead of "traffic-sensitive"? - S2.2, second paragraph: "From the viewpoint of network providers, the traffic that content servers generate has shifted to the edge network..." --- Is this still true? I was under the impression that the CSP's were moving ever so deeper into the network to position the content servers closer to the users, no? - S2.2, third paragraph: Not sure where you are headed with this text. Server improvement results in increased traffic, and so does using P2P applications. So, network bandwidth is not the problem that we are trying to solve here ... - S3.1: I believe what you are calling a "Dummy node" is actually a "Control node"; i.e., a node under your control so you can observe in detail what is transpiring on the P2P network and maybe even influence what happens on the network. By contrast, a real "dummy node" would be one that is passive and does not participate in the P2P network. Your description seems to lead credence to the belief that your dummy nodes essentially infiltrated the P2P network and somehow captured traffic on the network; but you do not describe how did they do this? By joining the P2P network and acting as peers? Or by DPI? It seems that you joined the P2P network as a sybil peer, but what confuses me is that you go on to say that "With this configuration, all packets can be captured without any impacts to the network ..." Clearly, a sybil peer will get all packets that traverse through it, but it will NOT get all packets generated in the P2P swarm. - S4, second paragraph: You write --- "When a peer joins the network, it registers its location information (IP address) and supplementary information (line speed, etc.) with the hint server." Here, I think you imply that a "peer" is one of your dummy servers, hence it is happy to provide supplementary information like line speed, etc. Since you did not modify the real peers, they will not provide the same supplementary information to the hint server that your dummy peer will. Please clarify. -S4, second paragraph: "The hint server makes a mapping of the new peer (P2P client) [...and...] generates a routing table in which peers are listed in the order of priority for selection, and returns the table to the peer." --- To be sure, this is not a routing table as much as it is an "ordered list of peers to contact" (your Figure 2 lends more credence to such a view). This should be clarified since the term "routing table" has a specific meaning to DHTs. - S4, below Figure 2 you write, "The network information used by the hint server is not information solicited from individual ISPs but the AS number and district information, which are more or less already public." Earlier, you made a point that supplementary information such as line speed is also sent to the hint server. How does the hint server use such information to rank the peers? - S4, 3rd paragraph below Figure 2: "Although the priority node ..." I think here you mean "target node" instead of "priority node". - S5: What is the difference between Experiment 1 and Experiment 2? It seems that Experiment 2 had a richer swarm, so you are getting better localization from this swarm. You may want to put some more information about the number of peers in Experiments 1 and 2, the duration during which these results were generated, etc. - S5.2 seems rather odd since you earlier made a point that traffic reduction was an important metric (c.f. S2.3, last sentence of the second paragraph, and last sentence of third paragraph). After priming the user that traffic reduction is important, S5.2 says that it is not. So, I am at a loss on how to interpret the results ... NITS: - S1, second paragraph: s/have been/has been/ - S2.1: s/application Bittorrent isn't/application, Bittorrent, isn't/ - S2.1: Any reference for PerfectDark? - S2.2: Please expand "IX". - S2.2: s/fees[3]./fees [3]./ This is a global comment to check for similar typos (see for instance, S3 that has the same problem). - S2.3: s/applications ./applications./ - S2.3: Not sure that the use of "conjunction" is the right word here... (c.f., "Besides this activity, the council also looked for new ways to avoid traffic conjunction by commercial P2P applications with ISPs,...") - S3: s/goals of our experiment are/goals of our experiment is/ - S4, below Table 1: s/gotten at/received from/ [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/p2prg/current/msg01719.html Thanks, - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA) Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani@alcatel-lucent.com Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/
- [p2prg] RGLC review for draft-kamei-p2p-experimen… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [p2prg] RGLC review for draft-kamei-p2p-exper… Tsuyoshi Momose (tmomose)
- Re: [p2prg] RGLC review for draft-kamei-p2p-exper… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [p2prg] RGLC review for draft-kamei-p2p-exper… Tsuyoshi Momose (tmomose)
- Re: [p2prg] RGLC review for draft-kamei-p2p-exper… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [p2prg] RGLC review for draft-kamei-p2p-exper… Tsuyoshi Momose (tmomose)
- Re: [p2prg] RGLC review for draft-kamei-p2p-exper… stefano previdi
- Re: [p2prg] RGLC review for draft-kamei-p2p-exper… Eggert, Lars
- Re: [p2prg] RGLC review for draft-kamei-p2p-exper… Tsuyoshi Momose (tmomose)