Re: Kenosis: BT tracker failover / distribution

I wrote an elaborate piece some time ago about how the whole thing 
just doesn't really help anything, and decentralization in software 
is a myth, but my article shows where decentralization really exists 
and how BT use has evolved to show that.

http://www.free-conversant.com/thom/main/2005/01/12

Thomas

--- In [email protected], Elliott Mitchell <ehem@m...> wrote:
> >From: Gary Fung <gary@i...>
> > On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 18:59:10 -0800 (PST), Elliott Mitchell 
<ehem@m...> wrote:
> > 
> > >> From: Gary Fung <gary@i...>
> 
> > I haven't read much about Kademlia either, but Kenosis describes 
a root node for discovery of peer nodes (trackers), and the location 
of root node is configurable. So there are central servers, but not a 
single one.
> > 
> 
> That root node sounds an awfully lot like a tracker...   ...and that
> isn't even the central server I'd worry most about.
> 
> > >> There are two cases to consider: legacy BitTorrent clients and 
Kenosis-enabled BitTorrent clients. In either case, imagine we have 
two Kenosis-enabled BitTorrent trackers being run on machines TA and 
TB (both on port 1234). Machines TA and TB automatically organize 
themselves into a Kademlia-style network via Kenosis. Let's further 
imagine a file being shared by the operator of TA, called FA. 
FA's .torrent file is constructed to talk to this tracker URL: 
http://foo.bt.kenosisp2p.org:1234/announce.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Sounds very much like the Multi-Tracker extension:
> > > http://bittornado.com/docs/multitracker-spec.txt
> > >
> > > It exists, it has been implemented. Haven't heard of complete 
failures
> > > with it. Perhaps the Kenosis folks should consider begining on 
that?
> > 
> > No this is different. multitracker pre-specifies trackers to 
connect to (I use it to add more bthub urls), Kenosis forms a P2P 
network of tracker nodes that all torrents can use. Node address is 
computed based on info_hash and a distance algorithm. Clients select 
the closest tracker node, if it goes down the next closest node is 
used so the swarm is not splitted.
> > 
> 
> Again, the root node sounds an awful lot like a tracker. True, 
subsequent
> requests can go elsewhere, but that root node *must* be up in order 
for
> clients to connect. What happens when I introduce an evil tracker? 
If
> tracker nodes get created without human interaction, I can easily
> introduce an evil tracker that kills everything.
> 
> Once you've brought human interaction into tracker creation, how is 
this
> superior to Multi-Tracker? Certainly it is inferior because all 
initial
> connections must be to that root hub. Where is the gain?
> 
> 
> -- 
> (\___(\___(\______          --=> 8-) EHM <=--          ______/)___/)
___/)
>  \   (    |         EHeM@g... PGP 8881EF59         |    )   /
>   \_  \   |  _____  -O #include <stddisclaimer.h> O-   _____  
|   /  _/
>     \___\_|_/82 04 A1 3C C7 B1 37 2A*E3 6E 84 DA 97 4C 40 E6
\_|_/___/





 
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/