Le mar. 15 oct. 2019 à 15:41, <xxxxxx@ancell-ent.com> a écrit :
>
> > From: Amirouche Boubekki <xxxxxx@gmail.com>
> > Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 4:36 AM
>
> > Le lun. 14 oct. 2019 à 20:50, <xxxxxx@ancell-ent.com> a écrit :
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> For an application where data transmission requirements are modest,
> >> the Skype supernode approach is an alternative to peer-to-peer.
> >
> > What is Skype supernode?
>
> Note I'm talking about their consumer product, not the completely
> different technology "Skype for Business".
>
> Before they were bought by Microsoft they took advantage of clients
> that weren't behind firewalls to connect clients that were in
> client-server mode, which e.g. caused some universities and the like
> to block them.
This supernode thing reminds me of PPSP
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/documents/.
They rely on intermediate nodes to cache and relay video chunks in
place of the peer responsible for that chunk.
>
> > [...]
> >
> >>> A peer initiating a request must wait for a reply at most 5 seconds.
> >>
> >> Another hard limit that should be thought about. Colonies on the
> >> Earth's moon, and in space in our Earth-Moon Lagrangian points,
> >> are close enough to consider including in the remit of this system
> >> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_point_colonization), and
> >> let's say they enforce a minimum round trip of ~2.5 seconds.
> >>
> >> I can imagine terrestrial situations where a long round trip is
> >> possible, although I'm not sure they'd be suited for this protocol.
> >
> > This is not IPFS. My idea behind this protocol is to solve today's
> > problems.
>
> Which is why I didn't suggest trying to include other planets like
> Mars, where a round trip varies from 8 to 40 minutes. Allowing for an
> extra 2.5 seconds for the Earth-Moon region strikes me as a rather
> small accommodation, which might be useful for some situations on Earth.
In that case yes. It can be made 10 seconds given the applications I
have in mind ie. applications that are not real-time. This make me
think I should find a better name than 'peer-to-peer'.
