1 / 38

A different approach to P2P concepts

EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003. A different approach to P2P concepts. Aline Viana, Marcelo Amorim, Serge Fdida, and José Rezende. Laboratoire LIP6 Université Paris VI www.lip6.fr. GTA/COPPE Université Fédéral de Rio de Janeiro www.gta.ufrj.br.

frith
Download Presentation

A different approach to P2P concepts

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003 A different approach to P2P concepts Aline Viana, Marcelo Amorim, Serge Fdida, and José Rezende Laboratoire LIP6 Université Paris VI www.lip6.fr GTA/COPPE Université Fédéral de Rio de Janeiro www.gta.ufrj.br

  2. P2P is a class of applications that take advantage of resources – storage, cycles, content, human presence – available at the edges of the Internet. Clay Shirky (www.shirky.com) P2P refers to a class of systems and applications that employ distributed resources to perform a critical function in a decentralized manner. Milojicic et al. (HP) Definitions EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  3. Properties • No central control, no central database • Deployable in an ad-hoc fashion • No hierarchy • Every node is both a client and a server • The communication between peers is symmetric • No global view of the system • Scalablity • Peers are autonomous • System globally unreliable • Robustness and security issues EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  4. Examples of p2p usage • File-sharing applications • Distributed databases • Distributed computing • Collaboration • Distributed games • Ad hoc networks • Application-level multicast • Etc. EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  5. Centralized model (Napster) • File-sharing system • Almost distributed system • The location of a document is centralized • The "transfer" is peer-to-peer • Problems • Robustness • Scalability EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  6. location server Register x INTERNET  Document x! OK: Peer Z IP = a.b.c.d Document x? x  Centralized model (Napster) EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  7. Non-structured system (Gnutella-like) • Two phases (like Napster) • Localization + exchange • No server • Open source • gnutella.wego.com • Distributed search • The query is flooded • Loop avoidance • Limited TTL (not all nodes are visited) EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  8. Gnutella EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  9. Problem formalization • We want scalability!! • Location X Routing • Routing • How the routing for a query is performed ? • Location • What is the host responsible for storing the document X queried by host h? EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  10. Overlay IP Routing: Overlay networks EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  11. Overlay IP Routing: Overlay networks EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  12. Location: Structured systems (DHTs) • Based on distributed hash tables (DHTs) • No flooding • Exact matches • Examples • CAN, Pastry, Chord, Tapestry, etc. EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  13. Content-Addressable Networks (CAN) • Provides a large scale distributed hash table • Keys are mapped into values • CAN defines a d-dimensional virtual space • No relationship with the physical space • The virtual space is completely distributed among the peers • Each peer is responsible for one share of the space • The peer that is responsible for region R is also responsible for the values inside R • Documents must be uniquely identified EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  14. Example EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  15. Example 1 EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  16. Example 1 2 EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  17. Example 1 2 3 3 EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  18. 1 4 Example 2 3 EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  19. 1 4 Example 4 2 5 3 EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  20. 1 Example 4 2 6 5 3 EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  21. 1 7 4 2 6 5 3 Example EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  22. 1 7 4 2 Hash 6 5 3 Ex: Node 3 holds this document Association ID  node EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  23. 1 7 4 2 6 5 3 Association ID  node EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  24. EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003 Routing in Large-Scale Self-organized Networks

  25. Pastry CAN Chord Motivation and Properties • Overlay • Application route ≠ network route • Scalability • Distributed Control EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  26. Mobility restrictions • address updates • different node identifier Motivation and Properties Node address = identifier + topological-dependent address • Dynamic networks • Topological-independent identification • Wireless self-organizing networks • GPS-free EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  27. Motivation and Properties • Scalability • Distributed control • Dynamic large-scale networks • Topological-independent address • Wireless self-organizing networks • GPS-free Is the ‘routing’ prepared for that demands? EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  28. Routing formalization? • We need to re-assess the relationship between • Address • Location (physical) • Route computation • State complexity EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  29. Motivation and Properties • Decouple • Physical network topology • « Logical » network topology • Performed in two phases: • Location of the destination • Communication source/dest Routing Indirect EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  30. Problem formalization • Does it exist : • An addressing structure • An associated mathematical space • that ease indirect routing • in a dynamic and self-organized network • that assure the physical proximity of each node EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  31. Problem formalization Positioning Location Service • How can a ‘logical’ topology that describes the physical topology be created? • How should the location information be distributed in the network ? • How can that information be located in the network ? EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  32. Tribe Location Service Positioning • Distributed location servers • Location servers are determined by a hash function • Called Tribe anchor node • Storing nodes’ location information • Node’s region determines whose the node can be a anchor node • Physical-Logicl association • Control regions of a logic space • Routing: • Based to the nodes’ control region EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  33. A network 1 2 3 D S Location service strategy • Address: • Universal identifier U • Logic identifier V • Relative address E EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  34. Topological-dependent address: E En Rn(+) = RFn(-) Rn(-) Rn(+) RFn(-) RFn(+) EFn Positioning strategy Rn(-) Rn(+) EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  35. n c1 d2 d1 c3 c2 Positioning strategy n c1 n c2 c1 n c2 d1 c1 n c3 c2 d1 c1 n c3 c2 d1 c1 d2 n EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  36. Positioning strategy • Path length: O(m) for N ≥ 2m • Routing table’s size: O(neigh.) EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  37. The work continues!!! • Tribe: • Rendezvous-based communication abstraction • Scale to arbitrarily large self-organizing topologies • A small amount of information suffices to implement Tribe routing • Simple approach • Should be robust to mobility • Many paths can be used • Need a multi-dimension space • Mapping a multi-dimensional data to a one-dimensional value • Should scale : balance responsabilities EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

  38. Merci!! Questions? EuronetLab, 04 juillet 2003

More Related