Re: bt2 protocol features

"skybuckflying" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.network.bit-torrent.general
Message-ID <[email protected]>

Ok here is my feedback and comments and questions about this :)

--- In [email protected], Bram Cohen <bram@b...> wrote:
> After much arguing, cogitating, arguing, and cogitating, the bt2 
protocol
> designs are now further along than they were before.
> 
> Features planned for bt2 -
> 
> merkle hash trees - this is by far the most compelling reason to 
break
> compatibility. Files in a multi-file will each have their own hash 
root.

I have no idea why this is usefull, what is is, how it works, or 
whatever :)

> 
> udp-based tracker protocol (with http-based alternative for those 
who care
> less about bandwidth than convenience)

UDP is pretty difficult ;) 

> 
> tracker redirection - when talking to a tracker, that tracker will 
tell
> you where your primary tracker is (usually the one you just hit) 
and your
> backup tracker is. This will enable (1) dynamic tracker load
> redistribution, and (2) tracker backups. Of course, some smarts on 
the
> tracker are necessary. When trackers are distributed they either 
have to
> send some peers to each other or make sure a seed is on each 
tracker, and
> when using a backup tracker it has to redirect everyone back to the 
main
> tracker when it comes back up again. Since those smarts don't 
involve
> changing the protocol, I'm completely punting on it until later.
> 
> a beefed up peer protocol - there are some subtle changes to the 
state
> machine planned, which are strict improvements but kind of involved 
so
> I'll skip over them now. Also peers will announce which files they 
want to
> enable cross-torrent trading.

Cross-torrent trading ?

Hmm does that mean when multiple torrents happen to have the same 
files inside them ?

> Finally, announcements of having parts of
> pieces will be added, since that's enabled by hash trees. Doing 
that last
> part well requires some smarts, but again the smarts don't change 
the
> protocol so I'm punting.

Hmm.. I dont really see why hash trees are needed... maybe I ll write 
my idea below ;)

> 
> The above are the things I'm convinced are a good idea. Notably 
missing is
> gossip. Too dangerous, may be added later via an extension 
mechanism.

Gossip ?

Sorry I am new to this mailing list :)

> The main sticking point left is how to deal with piece sizes - 
ideally all
> peers should be using the same piece size, but whether that's a 
good thing
> to require and if so (or even if not) how to set it I'm not sure of 
yet.

Well so far the torrent has the piece size in it.

So I guess you mean the problem might be with cross torrents having 
different pieces sizes ?

> Also I'm not sure how to make trackers support scrape functionality 
(or

What is scarep functionality ? :)

> more to the point, I'm not sure how much scrape functionality to 
carry
> over, and in what way). Other than those issues all that's left is 
a whole
> mess of details.
> 
> Rest assured that bt2 protocol will have the same ease of 
implementation
> and reliable compatibilty of bt1. Also rest assured I won't push 
the damn
> thing out until I'm certain it will get feature requests down to a 
dull
> roar for at least a few months.

Funny :)

Bye,
  Skybuck





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/dkFolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BitTorrent/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.