From panda@hongo.wide.ad.jp Sun Jun 3 12:03:36 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4079E21F84CF for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 12:03:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.904 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RELAY_IS_203=0.994] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N+IIxaWErvSO for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 12:03:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.hongo.wide.ad.jp (mail.hongo.wide.ad.jp [203.178.135.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C72021F844C for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 12:03:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.78.2] (tc.b.scyphus.co.jp [219.117.248.118]) by mail.hongo.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E47EA108DF47; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 04:03:33 +0900 (JST) From: Hirochika Asai Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 21:03:32 +0200 To: p2prg@irtf.org, stefano previdi , Volker Hilt Message-Id: <2A7D7CFF-EFA5-4CA7-967D-5B8004D36807@hongo.wide.ad.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 00:25:00 -0700 Subject: [p2prg] Updated and call for review: draft-asai-cross-domain-overlay-04 X-BeenThere: p2prg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 19:03:36 -0000 Hi p2prg chairs and folks, This is Hirochika Asai, a corresponding author of = . Please visit the following URL: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-asai-cross-domain-overlay/ We have updated our draft. This document summarizes the general = problems with cross-domain traffic of overlay networks and the = considerations on the inter-AS application-layer traffic optimization. The original document focused on very specific problems of P2P CDNs with = simulation results, but the document was revised to summarize general = problems and considerations to open further discussion towards the = inter-AS application-layer traffic optimization throughout the = discussion in this research group. We think that this document is worth = to be an "Information RFC" to bring up the discussion on requirements, = specification, and protocols for the inter-AS application-layer traffic = optimization. We will greatly appreciate your review on this document. Thank you very much in advance. Hirochika --=20 Hirochika Asai , The University of Tokyo From prvs=499ae1edd=neerajm@utdallas.edu Thu Jun 7 17:29:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E9DF11E809A for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 17:29:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.844 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.844 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.755, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5f7c0aWdCtJM for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 17:29:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ip-relay-001.utdallas.edu (ip-relay-001.utdallas.edu [129.110.20.111]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B6C011E808A for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 17:29:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Group: RELAYLIST X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,734,1330927200"; d="scan'208";a="99442499" Received: from unknown (HELO zem3.utdallas.edu) ([10.110.20.24]) by ip-relay-001.utdallas.edu with ESMTP; 07 Jun 2012 19:29:00 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zem3.utdallas.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7455D5A8130 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 19:29:00 -0500 (CDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zem3.utdallas.edu Received: from zem3.utdallas.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zem3.utdallas.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 77-0qMp7fYE6 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 19:28:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: from zem3.utdallas.edu (zem3.utdallas.edu [10.110.20.24]) by zem3.utdallas.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E8B65A8047 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 19:28:59 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 19:28:59 -0500 (CDT) From: Neeraj Mittal To: p2prg@irtf.org Message-ID: <1985585170.3129944.1339115339590.JavaMail.root@zem3.utdallas.edu> In-Reply-To: <1278537995.3129931.1339115284131.JavaMail.root@zem3.utdallas.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.110.20.50] X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.10_GA_2692 (ZimbraWebClient - SAF3 (Win)/6.0.10_GA_2692) Subject: [p2prg] Deadline Approaching: DISCCO 2012 (First International Workshop on Dependability Issues in Cloud Computing) X-BeenThere: p2prg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Neeraj Mittal List-Id: Peer-to-Peer Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 00:29:14 -0000 [Apologies if you received the CFP more than once.] Please consider submitting a paper to DISCCO 2012. ******************************************************************************************** Call For Papers First International Workshop on Dependability Issues in Cloud Computing (DISCCO) To be held in conjunction with the 31st IEEE International Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS) Location: Irvine, California, USA Date: October 11th, 2012 URL: https://sites.google.com/site/discco2012/ Scope: Cloud computing has recently emerged as a new and popular paradigm for deploying, managing and delivering a variety of services through a shared infrastructure. The services offered through clouds can range from simple data storage to end-to-end management of business processes. However, the broad, complex and dynamic nature of cloud computing environments makes it very challenging to provide resilience against design faults, unforeseen failures, unexpected operating conditions, and adversarial attacks. The widespread failure of Amazon's cloud computing infrastructure last year adversely affected thousands of Amazon's customers, and underscores the importance of providing reliability for cloud computing services. The objective of this workshop is to bring together researchers and practitioners from academia, industry and government organizations to foster discussion and share ideas, problems and solutions related to dependability issues in cloud computing. We solicit stimulating, original, previously unpublished ideas on completed work, position papers, and/or work-in-progress papers. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: - Testing and debugging automation tools for cloud software and applications - Monitoring, diagnosis and failure recovery mechanisms for cloud software and applications - Hardware and software fault-tolerance techniques for large-scale cloud computing - Fault-tolerant approaches to virtualization in clouds - Reliability of cloud software, applications and services - Autonomic and self-* cloud computing - Secure computation in clouds - Secure data management in clouds - Access control and key management in clouds - Network security mechanisms in clouds - Privacy and identity management in clouds Technical Program Committee: - Ahmed M. Azab, North Carolina State University, USA - Alysson N. Bessani, University of Lisboa, Portugal - Jack Brassil, HP Laboratories, USA - Abhishek Chandra, University of Minnesota, USA - Rezaul A. Chowdhury, Stony Brook University, USA - Nikos Chrisochoides, College of William and Mary, USA - Miguel Correia (Co-Chair), Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal - Vijay K. Garg, The University of Texas at Austin, USA - Rudiger Kapitza, Technische Universitat Braunschweig, Germany - Anne-Marie Kermarrec, INRIA, Renees, France - Khaled Khan, Qatar University, Qatar - Michael R. Lyu, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong - Neeraj Mittal (Co-Chair), The University of Texas at Dallas, USA - Sathya Peri, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Patna, India - Sriram Rao, Yahoo Research, USA - Kui (Quinn) Ren, Illinois Institute of Technology, USA - Kamil Sarac, The University of Texas at Dallas, USA - Prashant Shenoy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA - S. Venkatesan, The University of Texas at Dallas, USA Paper Submission: Authors should prepare a Portable Document Format (PDF) version of their full paper. Regular papers should be no longer than 6 pages; position and work-in-progress papers should be no longer than 3 pages. Papers should follow the IEEE two-column format for conference proceedings. The font size must be no smaller than 10 points, and must fit properly on US 'Letter'-sized paper (8.5 x 11 inches). All papers should be submitted through EasyChair server (use the link http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=discco2012). Publication: All submitted papers will be peer-reviewed and the accepted papers will be included in a Workshop Proceedings published by IEEE Computer Society Press, and distributed at the Symposium. The best papers from the workshop will be fast-tracked for publication in Operating Systems Review (OSR) journal. Important Dates: - Submission of papers: June 8th, 2012 - Acceptance/rejection notification: June 30th, 2012 - Camera-ready papers: July 16th, 2012 - Workshop date: October 11th, 2012 Contact: Send questions or comments to workshop co-chairs Neeraj Mittal at neerajm@utdallas.edu and Miguel P. Correia at miguel.p.correia@ist.utl.pt. From vkg@bell-labs.com Mon Jun 18 14:53:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B301421F86CE for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:53:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vgFwlpD3JrzG for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:53:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1049021F86CB for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:53:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.10]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q5ILrM2a026844 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:53:22 -0500 (CDT) Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail-ce2.ndc.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q5ILrMUi025595 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:53:22 -0500 Received: from shoonya.ih.lucent.com (shoonya.ih.lucent.com [135.185.237.229]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id q5ILrL8W007338; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:53:21 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <4FDFA4A7.3090807@bell-labs.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:59:03 -0500 From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" Organization: Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hilt, Volker (Volker)" , stefano previdi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.10 Cc: "p2prg@irtf.org" Subject: [p2prg] RGLC review for draft-kamei-p2p-experiments-japan-06 X-BeenThere: p2prg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 21:53:26 -0000 Volker, Stefano: In response to your email on the list for reviewing draft-kamei-p2p-experiments-japan-06 [1], I am submitting the following review of the draft. In summary, I think that the draft has the potential to document, for archival purposes, the early work on ALTO-like systems and trace the evolution of ALTO. But it needs a lot of editorial and grammatical work. Ideas and explorations in the draft need to be described more clearly and the results explained in more detail. Below is an in-depth summary of the changes that will be required on the draft. MAJOR: - S1: "Several proposals have been made to build an overlay network that takes account of the information about the lower layer network." May be a good idea to list some references, or a survey of this work. - S2.1, second paragraph: I am not sure I understand the impact of this paragraph. I *think* what you are trying to say is something like the following: Each P2P file sharing application has a unique protocol and none of them have a large market share therfore making it hard to effectively control. - S2.2, first paragraph: perhaps you meant "delay-sensitive" instead of "traffic-sensitive"? - S2.2, second paragraph: "From the viewpoint of network providers, the traffic that content servers generate has shifted to the edge network..." --- Is this still true? I was under the impression that the CSP's were moving ever so deeper into the network to position the content servers closer to the users, no? - S2.2, third paragraph: Not sure where you are headed with this text. Server improvement results in increased traffic, and so does using P2P applications. So, network bandwidth is not the problem that we are trying to solve here ... - S3.1: I believe what you are calling a "Dummy node" is actually a "Control node"; i.e., a node under your control so you can observe in detail what is transpiring on the P2P network and maybe even influence what happens on the network. By contrast, a real "dummy node" would be one that is passive and does not participate in the P2P network. Your description seems to lead credence to the belief that your dummy nodes essentially infiltrated the P2P network and somehow captured traffic on the network; but you do not describe how did they do this? By joining the P2P network and acting as peers? Or by DPI? It seems that you joined the P2P network as a sybil peer, but what confuses me is that you go on to say that "With this configuration, all packets can be captured without any impacts to the network ..." Clearly, a sybil peer will get all packets that traverse through it, but it will NOT get all packets generated in the P2P swarm. - S4, second paragraph: You write --- "When a peer joins the network, it registers its location information (IP address) and supplementary information (line speed, etc.) with the hint server." Here, I think you imply that a "peer" is one of your dummy servers, hence it is happy to provide supplementary information like line speed, etc. Since you did not modify the real peers, they will not provide the same supplementary information to the hint server that your dummy peer will. Please clarify. -S4, second paragraph: "The hint server makes a mapping of the new peer (P2P client) [...and...] generates a routing table in which peers are listed in the order of priority for selection, and returns the table to the peer." --- To be sure, this is not a routing table as much as it is an "ordered list of peers to contact" (your Figure 2 lends more credence to such a view). This should be clarified since the term "routing table" has a specific meaning to DHTs. - S4, below Figure 2 you write, "The network information used by the hint server is not information solicited from individual ISPs but the AS number and district information, which are more or less already public." Earlier, you made a point that supplementary information such as line speed is also sent to the hint server. How does the hint server use such information to rank the peers? - S4, 3rd paragraph below Figure 2: "Although the priority node ..." I think here you mean "target node" instead of "priority node". - S5: What is the difference between Experiment 1 and Experiment 2? It seems that Experiment 2 had a richer swarm, so you are getting better localization from this swarm. You may want to put some more information about the number of peers in Experiments 1 and 2, the duration during which these results were generated, etc. - S5.2 seems rather odd since you earlier made a point that traffic reduction was an important metric (c.f. S2.3, last sentence of the second paragraph, and last sentence of third paragraph). After priming the user that traffic reduction is important, S5.2 says that it is not. So, I am at a loss on how to interpret the results ... NITS: - S1, second paragraph: s/have been/has been/ - S2.1: s/application Bittorrent isn't/application, Bittorrent, isn't/ - S2.1: Any reference for PerfectDark? - S2.2: Please expand "IX". - S2.2: s/fees[3]./fees [3]./ This is a global comment to check for similar typos (see for instance, S3 that has the same problem). - S2.3: s/applications ./applications./ - S2.3: Not sure that the use of "conjunction" is the right word here... (c.f., "Besides this activity, the council also looked for new ways to avoid traffic conjunction by commercial P2P applications with ISPs,...") - S3: s/goals of our experiment are/goals of our experiment is/ - S4, below Table 1: s/gotten at/received from/ [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/p2prg/current/msg01719.html Thanks, - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA) Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani@alcatel-lucent.com Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/