Re: [P2Prg] CORE subgroup problem statement

[Michael Rogers <m.rogers at cs.ucl.ac.uk>]

Hi Arnaud,

Arnaud Legout wrote:
> My argument is that in the context of P2P the architecture, i.e., how 
> peers are arranged, does not give you much information.

On the other hand there are some situations (P2P over wireless, NATs and 
firewalls, F2F) where you have to work with the topology you're given, 
and it's useful to know which protocols are suitable for those (maybe 
not "unstructured" but "unstructurable") networks.

> I agree it is better than nothing, but a taxonomy based on functionality 
> would be more useful.

Perhaps the two are orthogonal - if not, it might be enlightening to 
find out why not.

Cheers,
Michael

_______________________________________________
P2prg mailing list
P2prg at irtf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2prg