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/