Dependability properties of P2P architectures

Walkerdine, J.; Melville, L.; Sommerville, Ian

doi:10.1109/ptp.2002.1046331

Cited by 19 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Even though it is useful to evaluate and compare frameworks with respect to the raw performance of their architectures and protocols, e.g., typical P2P quality attributes such as scalability, reliability, connection bandwidth, peer discovery, node addressing, and so on [10], we have chosen to focus on evaluating how well the design of LightPeers supports development and execution of applications for nomadic learning. Thus, in our evaluation of the framework we have not only measured its performance, but also considered how well the framework and its applications could support tasks within the use-domain, e.g., pupils joining and leaving groups, and producing, sharing and annotating material on a range of diverse mobile devices.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enabling Co-located Learning over Mobile Ad Hoc P2P with LightPeers

Christensen

Kristensen

Hansen

et al. 2008

JNW

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-This paper presents LightPeers -a new mobile P2P framework specifically tailored for use in a nomadic learning environment. A set of key requirements for the framework is identified based on nomadic learning, and these requirements are used as outset for designing and implementing the architecture and protocols. The main contributions of the LightPeers framework are: a mobile P2P framework including a specialized robust messaging protocol resilient to changes in the network topology, an developers API, and a suite of LightPeers applications supporting nomadic learning prototyping key features of LightPeers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enabling Co-located Learning over Mobile Ad Hoc P2P with LightPeers

Christensen

Kristensen

Hansen

et al. 2008

JNW

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, it is also interesting to know what is different between them. A lot of P2P file-sharing P2P networks have the following common features [10]: user privacy, encryption, distribution, data redundancy, direct transfer and high availability.…”

Section: P2p Architecture Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Controlling P2P File-Sharing Networks’ Traffic

García

Hammoumi

Cánovas

et al. 2011

NPA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the appearance of Peer-To -Peer (P2P) file-sharing networks some time ago, many Internet users have chosen this technology to share and search programs, videos, music, documents, etc. The total number of P2P file-sharing users has been increasing and decreasing in the last decade depending on the creation or end of some well known P2P file-sharing systems. P2P file-sharing networks traffic is currently overloading some data networks and it is a major headache for network administrators because it is difficult to control this kind of traffic (mainly because some P2P file-sharing networks encrypt their messages). This paper deals with the analysis, taxonomy and characterization of eight Public P2P file-sharing networks: Gnutella, Freeenet, Soulseek, BitTorrent, Opennap, eDonkey, MP2P and FastTrack. These eight most popular networks have been selected due to their different type of working architecture. Then, we will show the amount of users, files and the size of files inside these file-sharing networks. Finally, several network configurations are presented in order to control P2P file-sharing traffic in the network.

show abstract

“…The protocol builds a hierarchical decentralized overlay network [8] in which each host is required to forward both resource discovery and network maintenance messages. The protocol uses just five message types as follows:…”

Section: The Gnutella Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%