Matei lied to me and told me that this was the better paper of the two.
i3 is a fairly obvious scheme to provide mobility and multicast with an overlay. There's a few interesting implementation details that they tweezed out of the idea, but none are crucial for the actual design.
Again I come to question that has haunted me through this class, adoption. Overlays are nice for adoption, as you presumably control each client. This works particularly well for p2p, less so for others.
A big part of this paper was being general and applying to traditional servers, which don't need this. You only pay a performance penalty if there is no mobility or multicast. The lack of these is the common case. I also think it will remain the common case as we deploy more wide area wireless networks.
So, this really fits mobility and multicast in p2p networks. Each has interesting use cases I think, multicast is nice to steal stuff and mobility will allow a large class of applications on personal communication devices.
2 comments:
Multicast isn't actually that useful for stealing stuff. We don't all want stuff at the same instant.
Kurtis, you are a contrarian! It seems to me that this paper presents a better, more general mechanism than the delegation architecture, although the DOA thinks more about issues such as authentication and other security considerations.
Post a Comment