Re: [p2pi] Charter and problem statement

[Laird Popkin <laird at pando.com>]

I agree that we should keep "cache location" and "peer location" distinct, as they have somewhat different specifics. But I think that they can both fit within the same (ALTO) framework, as they have much in common.

I agree that keeping content identity out of cache location is a good idea. That being said, cache location doesn't need to be content-specific, because one the p2p client connects to the caches, the caches can determine what they do on a content-specific basis. So ALTO could (for example) decide which cache servers to send to a user based on the user's network location and protocol (e.g. Pando caches might run on different servers from Kontiki caches or HTTP caches, etc.). But as long as ALTO can return multiple cache servers (i.e. pools) the cache servers can manage whether to cache specific content, or where to assign it, transparently to ALTO, without ALTO having to know (for cache location) what content is assigned where. This is good for the caches, as it gives them maximum flexibility, without having to implement a complex state-change mechanism between the cache servers and the ALTO server.

- Laird Popkin, CTO, Pando Networks
  mobile: 646/465-0570

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stas Khirman" <stas at khirman.com>
To: "Enrico Marocco" <enrico.marocco at telecomitalia.it>
Cc: "Laird Popkin" <laird at pando.com>, p2pi at ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 1:56:49 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: RE: [p2pi] Charter and problem statement

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Enrico Marocco [mailto:enrico.marocco at telecomitalia.it]
> Stas Khirman wrote:
> > As matter of fact, "application" knowledge is just a smallest part of
> > problem - cache discovery requires announcement of specific content
> request
> > by end-user. It will create a lot of privacy and DMCA issues and
> probably
> > will be "show-stopper" for adoption both by client application
> developers
> > and ISPs.
> 
> I don't see issues as long as disclosure of such information is optional
> and up to the client. At worst, peers concerned by DMCA issues won't use
> the cache discovery extension (which in any case would be useful to
> peers in "controlled" P2P systems such as Pando or BBC's iPlayer). No?
> 
[Stas Khirman] 
DMCA issue is rather ISP problem, not an end-user one. I'm not a layer
(happy smile), but it seems that if ISP-own equipment able to distinguish a
specific content, under specific conditions they are liable to provide
filtering and other DMCA "safe-harbor" features. It will be a case even when
a small part of clients includes content identifier into "optimization"
request (regardless if ISP has or has no installed cache servers)

My main point is that separating "optimization" and "discovery" processes we
can eliminate all those issues all together, making ALTO more flexible and
ISP less reluctant to deploy it ( or part of it). 


_______________________________________________
p2pi mailing list
p2pi at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi