From andy.silva@snsreports.com Sat Dec 1 19:34:03 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0D9821E8091 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 19:34:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.455 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.455 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, GB_AFFORDABLE=1, HTML_FONT_SIZE_HUGE=0.057, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QnOPO+KXbufd for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 19:34:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from a0i10.smtpcorp.com (a0i10.smtpcorp.com [207.58.147.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 912D321E808C for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 19:34:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=smtpcorp.com; s=main; h=Message-ID:Date:Content-Type:Subject:To:Reply-To:From:MIME-Version; bh=LFd4dKXbrM6JbYE6UWZH8QUAW9wKMCcdYalHtNRdcek=; b=QJPy5xJeX4x0cmu4jzN2AocRaRFoYktyQYH8d+ew7yO2LWfJUs4eHJdSzv4f5on/DyPgOTZ9Mo3DirYTEfvH/FwkEv1kmHDct/WgVAsYk2N6MtKfrnKN1POIT+qIRBDX; MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "Andy Silva" To: ppsp@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_6ABB_258E4DA1.73F46CC9" X-Mailer: Smart_Send_2_0_132 Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2012 03:33:51 +0000 Message-ID: <8500374399136103831375@Sakudhwani-PC> X-Smtpcorp-Track: 128138103.1.61931341 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 02 Dec 2012 17:57:04 -0800 Subject: [ppsp] The 2G, 3G and 4G Wireless Network Infrastructure Market: 2012 - 2017 (Report) X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: andy.silva@snsreports.com List-Id: discussing to draw up peer to peer streaming protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2012 03:34:04 -0000 ------=_NextPart_001_6ABB_258E4DA1.73F46CC9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The 2G, 3G and 4G Wireless Network Infrastructure Market: 2012 - 2017 (Repo= rt) Report Information: Release Date: November 2012 Number of Pages: 151 Report Overview: The wireless network infrastructure market is currently in a phase of trans= ition as mobile network operators seek to address increasing mobile traffic= demands amidst global economic uncertainties. This paradigm shift is bring= ing new challenges and opportunities to infrastructure vendors. In 2011, global 2G , 3G and 4G wireless infrastructure revenues stood at $4= 5.9 billion. Signals and Systems Telecom estimates that these revenues will= increase 8 percent year on year (YOY) reaching $49.7 billion by end of 201= 2, primarily driven by LTE investments. However, between 2012 and 2017, th= e market is expected to shrink to $48.6 billion. Although, the new wave of 4G macrocell Radio Access Network (RAN) and core= network investments will not be able to compensate the overall declines in= 2G and 3G equipment sales, operators are expected to significantly increas= e their spending in the evolving small cell and carrier WiFi equipment mark= et. Small cell and WiFi offload equipment will represent a market worth $5.= 4 billion in 2017. Consequently the small cell and WiFi offload market segm= ent is attracting considerable attention from both established vendors as w= ell as startups which solely focus on the small cell market. This report provides an in-depth assessment of the 2G, 3G and 4G wireless n= etwork infrastructure market, and also explores the small cell and WiFi off= load, and the mobile backhaul markets. Besides analyzing the key market dri= vers, challenges, regional CAPEX commitments and vendor strategies, the rep= ort also presents revenue and unit shipment forecasts for the wireless netw= ork infrastructure, small cell and WiFi offload, and the mobile backhaul ma= rkets from 2012 to 2017 at a regional as well as a global scale. Historical= figures and vendor shares are also provided for 2010 and 2011. Topic Covered: 2G (GSM and CDMA) technology and market trends 3G (WCDMA, TD-SCDMA and CDMA-2000) technology and market trends 4G (LTE, WiMAX) technology and market trends Core network equipment market trends Mobile backhaul equipment and market trends WiFi offload, small cell and HetNet technology and market trends Market drivers for wireless network infrastructure investments Challenges to the wireless network infrastructure ecosystem Vendor profiles and strategies Global and regional market analysis and forecasts SWOT analysis of the wireless network infrastructure market Key Questions Answered: The report answers to the following key questions.=20 How is the 2G, 3G & 4G infrastructure market evolving by segment and region= =3F What will the market size be in 2017 and at what rate will it grow=3F What trends, challenges and barriers are influencing its growth=3F How will the market shape for small cell infrastructure such as Femtocells,= Picocells, Microcells and other "HetNet" deployments=3F How will WiFi fit into future network architectures for access and offload=3F Who are the key vendors in the market, what is their market share and what= are their strategies=3F What strategies should be adopted by operators and vendors to remain a domi= nant market force=3F Which 2G, 3G & 4G technology constitutes the highest amount of spending and= how will this evolve overtime=3F How will LTE deployments proceed, and how long will GSM, HSPA and CDMA tech= nologies coexist with LTE=3F When will WiMAX infrastructure spending diminish =3F What is the global and regional outlook for RAN and core network sub-market= s =3F What is the opportunity for wireless backhaul market, and what new backhaul= solutions are evolving=3F Table of Contents: Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Executive Summary 1.2 Topics Covered 1.3 Key Questions Answered 1.4 Key Findings 1.5 Methodology 1.6 Target Audience 1.7 Companies Mentioned Chapter 2: An Overview of the Wireless Infrastructure Market 2.1 2G (GSM and CDMA) 2.1.1 2G Trends & Developments 2.1.2 2G Market Summary 2.2 3G (WCDMA, TD-SCDMA and CDMA 2000) 2.2.1 3G Trends and Developments 2.2.2 3G Market Summary 2.3 4G (LTE and WiMAX) 2.3.1 4G Trends and Developments 2.3.2 4G Market Summary 2.4 RAN Market for 2G/3G/4G 2.4.1 RAN Trends and Developments 2.4.1.1 C-RAN 2.4.1.2 HetNets 2.5 Mobile Core Network for 2G/3G/4G 2.5.1 Mobile Core Trends and Developments 2.5.2 Summary 2.6 Backhaul 2.6.1 Backhaul Trends and Developments 2.6.2 Summary 2.7 WiFi Offload 2.7.1 Wi-Fi Trends and Developments 2.7.2 Wi-Fi Summary 2.8 Small Cell Market 2.8.1 Femtocell 2.8.2 Picocell 2.8.3 Microcell 2.8.4 Metrocell 2.8.5 Small Cells Trends and Developments Chapter 3: Market Drivers, Barriers and Risks 3.1 Mobile Infrastructure Market Drivers 3.1.1 Smartphone and Tablet Proliferation 3.1.1.1 Strategic Choice for Operators: Reduce Cost per Mega Bit 3.1.1.2 Strategic Choice for Operators: Offer Subsidised and Affordable Sma= rtphones 3.1.2 Mobile Subscription Growth 3.1.2.1 Strategic Choice for Operators: Upgrade to New Technologies and Arc= hitectures 3.1.3 Mobile Broadband Growth 3.1.3.1 Strategic Choice for Operators: Invest in Backhaul 3.1.4 Data Traffic Growth 3.1.4.1 Strategic Choice for Operators: Smarter Data offloading 3.1.5 Trend Summary 3.2 Barriers 3.2.1 A drop in CAPEX/Sales Ratio 3.2.2 Operators Embracing RAN Sharing 3.2.3 Operators are Finding Innovative Ways to Address Capacity Issues 3.3 Risks 3.3.1 Political, Social, Economic, Social and Environmental Threats 3.4 Summary of Driving and Resisting Forces 3.5 Business Case for Investments in New and Existing Technologies 3.5.1.1 Gain Operational Efficiencies through strategic Investments 3.5.1.2 Invest in Capacity for Increased Revenue Opportunities 3.5.1.3 Deliver Best User Experience 3.5.1.4 Reduce Competitive Threats 3.5.1.5 Target the M2M opportunities 3.5.1.6 Increase Customer Satisfaction 3.5.1.7 Capitalise on Differentiation Strategy 3.5.1.8 Evolve towards NG Networks Chapter 4: Market Analysis and Forecasts 4.1 Market Definition 4.2 The Global 2G, 3G and 4G Wireless Infrastructure Market 4.3 2G (GSM and CDMA) 4.3.1 Market Assessment 4.3.2 Forecast 4.3.3 Market Opportunity Analysis 4.3.4 Summary 4.4 3G (WCDMA, TD-SCDMA and CDMA 2000) 4.4.1 Market Assessment 4.4.2 Forecast 4.4.3 Market Opportunity Analysis 4.4.4 Summary 4.5 4G (LTE and WiMax) 4.5.1 LTE Market Assessment 4.5.2 WiMAX Market Assessment 4.5.3 Forecast 4.5.4 4G Market Opportunity Analysis 4.5.5 Summary 4.6 RAN 4.6.1 RAN Market Assessment 4.6.2 Forecast 4.6.3 Market Opportunity Analysis 4.7 Small Cells 4.7.1 Market Assessment 4.7.2 Forecast 4.8 Mobile Core 4.8.1 Packet Core Market Assessment 4.8.2 Forecast 4.8.3 Market Opportunity Analysis 4.9 Backhaul 4.9.1 Market Assessment 4.9.2 Forecast 4.10 WiFi Market 4.10.1 Wi-Fi Market Assessment 4.10.2 Market Forecast 4.10.3 Wi-Fi Market Opportunity Analysis 4.11 Summary Chapter 5: Regional 2G, 3G and 4G wireless Infrastructure Markets 5.1 North American Market 5.1.1 Market Dynamics 5.1.2 Forecast 5.2 Asia Pacific 5.2.1 Market Dynamics 5.2.2 Forecast 5.3 Western Europe 5.3.1 Market Dynamics 5.3.2 Forecast 5.4 Latin and Central America 5.4.1 Market Dynamics 5.4.2 Forecast 5.5 Eastern Europe 5.5.1 Market Dynamics 5.5.2 Forecast 5.6 Africa 5.6.1 Market Dynamics 5.6.2 Forecast 5.7 Middle East 5.7.1 Market Dynamics 5.7.2 Forecast 5.8 Summary Chapter 6: Wireless Infrastructure Market Dynamics 6.1 Vendor Profiles 6.1.1 Ericsson 6.1.1.1 Portfolio 6.1.1.2 Strategy 6.1.1.3 Market Momentum 6.2 Alcatel Lucent 6.2.1 Portfolio 6.2.2 Strategy 6.2.3 Market Momentum 6.3 Huawei 6.3.1 Portfolio 6.3.2 Strategies 6.3.3 Market Momentum 6.4 ZTE 6.4.1 Portfolio 6.4.2 Strategies 6.4.3 Market Momentum 6.5 NSN 6.5.1 Strategies 6.5.2 Portfolio 6.5.3 Market Momentum 6.6 Samsung 6.6.1 Portfolio 6.6.2 Strategy 6.6.3 Market Momentum 6.7 Cisco 6.7.1 Portfolio 6.7.2 Strategy 6.7.3 Market Momentum 6.8 Alvarion 6.8.1 Portfolio 6.8.2 Strategy 6.8.3 Market Momentum 6.9 Acme Packet 6.9.1 Portfolio 6.9.2 Strategy 6.10 NEC 6.11 Fujitsu 6.12 BLiNQ 6.12.1 Market Momentum 6.13 Siklu 6.14 Vendor Outlook 6.15 Vendor Rankings Chapter 7: Conclusion 7.1 SWOT Analysis 7.2 Recommendations for Operators 7.3 Recommendations for Infrastructure Vendors List of Tables: Table 1: RAN Component Segmentation by Technology Table 2: Backhaul Technologies Table 3: Strategic Options for Operators Table 4: RAN Revenues by Technology ($ billions) 2010-2017 Table 5: Barriers and Risks with WiMAX Table 6: Key Small Cell Vendors Table 7: Major Mobile Ethernet Backhaul Vendors Table 8: Major Mobile Microwave Backhaul Vendors Table 9: Asia Pacific Market Dynamics Table 10: Leading Vendors by Key Technologies Table 11: Vendor Ranking by H1 2012 Revenues Table 12: Vendor Market Share 2010-2011 Table 13: SWOT Analysis List of Figures: Figure 1: Key Wireless Technologies Used Across the Globe Figure 2: 3GPP Wireless Technology Evolution Figure 3: Global GSM Networks 1991 - 2011 Figure 4: Global GSM Subscription (Billions) 1991 - 2011 Figure 5: Global WCDMA and HSPA Subscription (Millions) 2010 - 2017 Figure 6: Global WCDMA Subscription (%) 2012 Figure 7: Global LTE Commercial Launches 2009-2012 Figure 8: Global Smartphone Shipment (Millions) 2009-2017 Figure 9: Global Mobile Handset vs. Smartphone Shipment (Millions) 2010-2017 Figure 10: Global Smartphone Subscribers as a Percentage of the Mobile Subs= cribers (Billions) 2010-2017 Figure 11: Global Mobile Subscriptions (Billions) 2009-2017 Figure 12: Global Mobile Traffic (Exabyte) 2011-2017 Figure 13: Global 2G, 3G and 4G Wireless Infrastructure Revenues ($Millions= ) 2010 - 2017 Figure 14: Global 2G Vs. 4G Wireless Infrastructure Revenues ($billions) 20= 11- 2017 Figure 15: Global Wireless RAN Revenues by Technology ($Billions) 2010 - 20= 17 Figure 16: Global Mobile Subscription by Technology (%) 2012 Figure 17: Global GSM RAN Revenues ($ Billions) 2010 - 2017 Figure 18: Global CDMA RAN Revenues (Billions) 2010 - 2017 Figure 19: Global GSM Spend (%) 2011-2017 Figure 20: Global WCDMA RAN Infrastructure Revenues (Billions) 2010 - 2017 Figure 21: TD-SCDMA RAN Revenues ($ Billions) 2010 - 2017 Figure 22: Global GSM and WCDMA RAN Revenues ($ Billions) 2010 - 2017 Figure 23: Global LTE RAN Infrastructure Revenues (Billions) 2010 - 2017 Figure 24: Global WiMAX RAN Revenues (Billions) 2010 - 2017 Figure 25: Global RAN Revenues by Technologies (%) 2011 - 2017 Figure 26: Global BTS Unit Shipment 2011 - 2017 Figure 27: Global Base Station Shipment by Region (%) 2011 - 2017 Figure 28: Small Cell Unit Shipments Revenue (USD Millions) 2011 - 2017 Figure 29: Small Cell Unit Shipments (Thousands of Unit Shipments) 2010-201= 7 by Cell Type Figure 30: Small Cell Market Share by Vendors (%) 2010-2011 Figure 31: 3G/4G Small Cell Unit Shipments Revenue by Region (USD Millions)= 2011 - 2017 Figure 32: Small Cell Unit Shipments (Thousands of Unit Shipments) 2011 - 2= 017 by Region Figure 33: Evolved Packet Core Revenues ($Million) 2011-2017 Figure 34: 3G Packet Core Revenues ($Million) 2011-2017 Figure 35: HLR and MSC Revenues ($Million) 2011-2017 Figure 36: Global Spending on Mobile Backhaul Equipment ($billion): 2011 - = 2017 Figure 37: Mobile Microwave Backhaul Market Share by Vendors (%) 2010-2011 Figure 38: Mobile Backhaul Ethernet Market Share by Vendors (%) 2010-2011 Figure 39: Spending on Mobile Backhaul by Technology (%) 2017 Figure 40: Mobile Backhaul Market Revenues by Region ($ billions) 2011 - 20= 17 Figure 41: WiFi Offload Small Cell Infrastructure Market Share by Vendor: 2= 010-2011 Figure 42: 2G, 3G and 4G Wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues by Region ($Mil= lions) 2011 - 2017 Figure 43: 2G, 3G and 4G Wirelesses Infrastructure Market Share Comparison = (%) by Region 2012-2017 Figure 44: 2G, 3G and 4G Wirelesses Infrastructure Market Share by Region (= %) 2012 Figure 45: 2G, 3G and 4G Wirelesses Infrastructure Market Share by Region (= %) 2017 Figure 46: North American 2G, 3G and 4G wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues = ($Million) 2010-2017 Figure 47: North American 2G/3G vs. 4G wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues (= $Million) 2010-2017 Figure 48: North American 4G wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues ($Million) = 2010-2017 Figure 49: North American wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues by Technology = ($Million) 2010-2017 Figure 50: North American Core vs. RAN Wireless Infrastructure Revenues ($m= illions) 2010-2017 Figure 51: Asia Pacific 2G, 3G and 4G wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues ($= Million) 2011-2017 Figure 52: Asia Pacific 2G/3G Vs. 4G wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues ($M= illion) 2011-2017 Figure 53: Asia Pacific RAN Vs. Core wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues ($M= illion) 2011-2017 Figure 54: Asia Pacific Wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues by Technology ($= Million) 2011-2017 Figure 55: Western Europe Wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues ($Million) 201= 1-2017 Figure 56: Western Europe 2G/3G vs. 4G Wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues (= $Million) 2011-2017 Figure 57: Western Europe Wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues ($Million) by = Technology 2011-2017 Figure 58: Western Europe RAN vs. Core Wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues (= $Million) 2011-2017 Figure 59: Latin and Central America Wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues ($M= illion) 2011-2017 Figure 60: Latin and Central America 2G/3G vs. 4G Wirelesses Infrastructure= Revenues ($Million) 2011-2017 Figure 61: Latin and Central America Wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues by = Technology ($Million) 2011-2017 Figure 62: Latin and Central America Core Vs. RAN Wirelesses Infrastructure= Revenues ($Million) 2011-2017 Figure 63: Eastern Europe Wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues ($Million) 201= 1-2017 Figure 64: Eastern Europe 2G/3G vs. 4G Wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues (= $Million) 2011-2017 Figure 65: Eastern Europe Wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues by Technology = ($Million) 2011-2017 Figure 66: Eastern Europe Core vs. RAN Wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues (= $Million) 2011-2017 Figure 67: Africa Wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues ($Million) 2011-2017 Figure 68: Africa Wirelesses 2G/3G vs. 4G Infrastructure Revenues ($Million= ) 2011-2017 Figure 69: Africa Wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues by Technology ($Millio= n) 2011-2017 Figure 70: Africa Wirelesses Core vs. RAN Infrastructure Revenues ($Million= ) 2011-2017 Figure 71: Middle East Wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues ($Million) 2011-2= 017 Figure 72: Middle East 2G/3G Vs. 4G Wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues ($Mi= llion) 2011-2017 Figure 73: Middle East Wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues by Technology ($M= illion) 2011-2017 Figure 74: Vendor Market Share (%) 2010-2011 List of Companies Mentioned: 3GPP Acme Packet Actelis Adtran ADVA Airvana Alcatel Lucent Alvarion ANDA Apertio Argela Axerra BLiNQ Canoga Perkins Celtro Ciena Cisco Clavister Clearwire Contela ECI Ericsson FibroLAN Fujitsu Genband Hatteras HP Huawei Intel Ip-Access IPITEK Juniper Metaswitch Networks MetroPCS Mindspeed Motorola MRV NEC Nortel Nokia Siemens Networks NTT DoCoMo Overture Positron RAD Samsung Siklu Softbank Sonus Networks Starent Networks Telco Systems Telefonica TeliaSonera Tellabs Telrad Thomson Three Turin Ubee interactive Ubiquisys UTstarcom Vodafone Wavion Yota ZTE Report Pricing: Single User License: USD 2,500 Company Wide License: USD 3,500 Ordering Process: Please contact Andy Silva on andy.silva@snsreports.com And provide the following information: Report Title - Report License - (Single User/Company Wide) Name - Email - Job Title - Company - Invoice Address Please contact me if you have any questions, or wish to purchase a copy I look forward to hearing from you. Kind Regards Andy Silva Marketing Executive Signals and Systems Telecom Reef Tower Jumeirah Lake Towers Sheikh Zayed Road Dubai, UAE www.snstelecom.com =20 =20 To unsubscribe please click on the link below or send an email with unsubsc= ribe in the subject line to: info@snsreports.com Remove me from your mailing list ------=_NextPart_001_6ABB_258E4DA1.73F46CC9 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=

The 2G, 3G and 4G&nbs= p;Wireless Network Infrastructure Market: 2012 - 2017 (Report)<= /B>

Report Information:

Release Date:= November 2012
Number of Pages: 151

Report Overview:<= /FONT>

The wireless networ= k infrastructure market is currently in a phase of transition as mobile net= work operators seek to address increasing mobile traffic demands amidst glo= bal economic uncertainties. This paradigm shift is bringing new challenges = and opportunities to infrastructure vendors.

In 2011, global 2G = , 3G and 4G wireless infrastructure revenues stood at $45.9 billion. Signal= s and Systems Telecom estimates that these revenues will increase 8 percent= year on year (YOY) reaching $49.7 billion by end of 2012,  primarily = driven by LTE investments. However, between 2012 and 2017, the market is ex= pected to shrink to $48.6 billion.

Although, the new w= ave of 4G macrocell  Radio Access Network (RAN) and core network inves= tments will not be able to compensate the overall declines in 2G and 3G equ= ipment sales, operators are expected to significantly increase their spendi= ng in the evolving small cell and carrier WiFi equipment market. Small cell= and WiFi offload equipment will represent a market worth $5.4 billion in 2= 017. Consequently the small cell and WiFi offload market segment is attract= ing considerable attention from both established vendors as well as startup= s which solely focus on the small cell market.

This report provide= s an in-depth assessment of the 2G, 3G and 4G wireless network infrastructu= re market, and also explores the small cell and WiFi offload, and the mobil= e backhaul markets. Besides analyzing the key market drivers, challenges, r= egional CAPEX commitments and vendor strategies, the report also presents r= evenue and unit shipment forecasts for the wireless network infrastructure,= small cell and WiFi offload, and the mobile backhaul markets from 2012 to = 2017 at a regional as well as a global scale. Historical figures and vendor= shares are also provided for 2010 and 2011.

Topic Covered:

2G (GSM and CDMA) t= echnology and market trends
3G (WCDMA, TD-SCDMA and CDMA-2000) technolo= gy and market trends
4G (LTE, WiMAX) technology and market trends
C= ore network equipment market trends
Mobile backhaul equipment and marke= t trends
WiFi offload, small cell and HetNet technology and market tren= ds
Market drivers for wireless network infrastructure investments
C= hallenges to the wireless network infrastructure ecosystem
Vendor profi= les and strategies
Global and regional market analysis and forecastsSWOT analysis of the wireless network infrastructure market
Key Questio= ns Answered:
The report answers to the following key questions.  How is the 2G, 3G & 4G infrastructure market evolving by segment and = region=3F What will the market size be in 2017 and at what rate will it gro= w=3F
What trends, challenges and barriers are influencing its growth=3F<= BR>How will the market shape for small cell infrastructure such as Femtocel= ls, Picocells, Microcells and other "HetNet" deployments=3F
How will WiF= i fit into future network architectures for access and offload=3F
Who ar= e the key vendors in the market,  what is their market share and what = are their strategies=3F
What strategies should be adopted by operators a= nd vendors to remain a dominant market force=3F
Which 2G, 3G & 4G te= chnology constitutes the highest amount of spending and how will this evolv= e overtime=3F
How will LTE deployments proceed, and how long will GSM, H= SPA and CDMA technologies coexist with LTE=3F
When will WiMAX infrastruc= ture spending diminish =3F
What is the global and regional outlook for R= AN and core network sub-markets =3F
What is the opportunity for wireless= backhaul market, and what new backhaul solutions are evolving=3F

Table of Contents:

Chapter 1: Introduc= tion
1.1 Executive Summary
1.2 Topics Covered
1.3 Key Questions= Answered
1.4 Key Findings
1.5 Methodology
1.6 Target Audience =
1.7 Companies Mentioned

Chapter 2: An Overv= iew of the Wireless Infrastructure Market
2.1 2G (GSM and CDMA)
2.1.= 1 2G Trends & Developments
2.1.2 2G Market Summary
2.2 3G (WCDM= A, TD-SCDMA and CDMA 2000)
2.2.1 3G Trends and Developments
2.2.2 3= G Market Summary
2.3 4G (LTE and WiMAX)
2.3.1 4G Trends and Develop= ments
2.3.2 4G Market Summary
2.4 RAN Market for 2G/3G/4G
2.4.1= RAN Trends and Developments
2.4.1.1 C-RAN
2.4.1.2 HetNets
2.5 = Mobile Core Network for 2G/3G/4G
2.5.1 Mobile Core Trends and Developme= nts
2.5.2 Summary
2.6 Backhaul
2.6.1 Backhaul Trends and Develo= pments
2.6.2 Summary
2.7 WiFi Offload
2.7.1 Wi-Fi Trends and De= velopments
2.7.2 Wi-Fi Summary
2.8 Small Cell Market
2.8.1 Femt= ocell
2.8.2 Picocell
2.8.3 Microcell
2.8.4 Metrocell
2.8.5 Sm= all Cells Trends and Developments

Chapter 3: Market D= rivers, Barriers and Risks
3.1 Mobile Infrastructure Market Drivers 3.1.1 Smartphone and Tablet Proliferation
3.1.1.1 Strategic Choice for = Operators: Reduce Cost per Mega Bit
3.1.1.2 Strategic Choice for Operat= ors: Offer Subsidised and Affordable Smartphones
3.1.2 Mobile Subscript= ion Growth
3.1.2.1 Strategic Choice for Operators: Upgrade to New Techn= ologies and Architectures
3.1.3 Mobile Broadband Growth
3.1.3.1 Str= ategic Choice for Operators: Invest in Backhaul
3.1.4 Data Traffic Grow= th
3.1.4.1 Strategic Choice for Operators: Smarter Data offloading
3= .1.5 Trend Summary
3.2 Barriers
3.2.1 A drop in CAPEX/Sales Ratio <= BR>3.2.2 Operators Embracing RAN Sharing
3.2.3 Operators are Finding In= novative Ways to Address Capacity Issues
3.3 Risks
3.3.1 Political,= Social, Economic, Social and Environmental Threats
3.4 Summary of Driv= ing and Resisting Forces
3.5 Business Case for Investments in New and E= xisting Technologies
3.5.1.1 Gain Operational Efficiencies through stra= tegic Investments
3.5.1.2 Invest in Capacity for Increased Revenue Oppo= rtunities
3.5.1.3 Deliver Best User Experience
3.5.1.4 Reduce Competi= tive Threats
3.5.1.5 Target the M2M opportunities
3.5.1.6 Increase C= ustomer Satisfaction
3.5.1.7 Capitalise on Differentiation Strategy 3.5.1.8 Evolve towards NG Networks

Chapter 4: Market A= nalysis and Forecasts
4.1 Market Definition
4.2 The Global 2G, 3G a= nd 4G Wireless Infrastructure Market
4.3 2G (GSM and CDMA)
4.3.1 Mark= et Assessment
4.3.2 Forecast
4.3.3 Market Opportunity Analysis
4= .3.4 Summary
4.4 3G (WCDMA, TD-SCDMA and CDMA 2000)
4.4.1 Market As= sessment
4.4.2 Forecast
4.4.3 Market Opportunity Analysis
4.4.4= Summary
4.5 4G (LTE and WiMax)
4.5.1 LTE Market Assessment
4.5= .2 WiMAX Market Assessment
4.5.3 Forecast
4.5.4 4G Market Opportuni= ty Analysis
4.5.5 Summary
4.6 RAN
4.6.1 RAN Market Assessment <= BR>4.6.2 Forecast
4.6.3 Market Opportunity Analysis
4.7 Small Cells=
4.7.1 Market Assessment
4.7.2 Forecast
4.8 Mobile Core
4.8.= 1 Packet Core Market Assessment
4.8.2 Forecast
4.8.3 Market Opportu= nity Analysis
4.9 Backhaul
4.9.1 Market Assessment
4.9.2 Foreca= st
4.10 WiFi Market
4.10.1 Wi-Fi Market Assessment
4.10.2 Marke= t Forecast
4.10.3 Wi-Fi Market Opportunity Analysis
4.11 Summary

Chapter 5: Regional= 2G, 3G and 4G wireless Infrastructure Markets
5.1 North American Market=
5.1.1 Market Dynamics
5.1.2 Forecast
5.2 Asia Pacific
5.2.1 = Market Dynamics
5.2.2 Forecast
5.3 Western Europe
5.3.1 Market = Dynamics
5.3.2 Forecast
5.4 Latin and Central America
5.4.1 Mar= ket Dynamics
5.4.2 Forecast
5.5 Eastern Europe
5.5.1 Market Dyn= amics
5.5.2 Forecast
5.6 Africa
5.6.1 Market Dynamics
5.6.2= Forecast
5.7 Middle East
5.7.1 Market Dynamics
5.7.2 Forecast =
5.8 Summary

Chapter 6: Wireless= Infrastructure Market Dynamics
6.1 Vendor Profiles
6.1.1 Ericsson <= BR>6.1.1.1 Portfolio
6.1.1.2 Strategy
6.1.1.3 Market Momentum
6.= 2 Alcatel Lucent
6.2.1 Portfolio
6.2.2 Strategy
6.2.3 Market Mo= mentum
6.3 Huawei
6.3.1 Portfolio
6.3.2 Strategies
6.3.3 Ma= rket Momentum
6.4 ZTE
6.4.1 Portfolio
6.4.2 Strategies
6.4.= 3 Market Momentum
6.5 NSN
6.5.1 Strategies
6.5.2 Portfolio
= 6.5.3 Market Momentum
6.6 Samsung
6.6.1 Portfolio
6.6.2 Strateg= y
6.6.3 Market Momentum
6.7 Cisco
6.7.1 Portfolio
6.7.2 Str= ategy
6.7.3 Market Momentum
6.8 Alvarion
6.8.1 Portfolio
6.= 8.2 Strategy
6.8.3 Market Momentum
6.9 Acme Packet
6.9.1 Portfo= lio
6.9.2 Strategy
6.10 NEC
6.11 Fujitsu
6.12 BLiNQ
6.1= 2.1 Market Momentum
6.13 Siklu
6.14 Vendor Outlook
6.15 Vendor = Rankings

Chapter 7: Conclusi= on
7.1 SWOT Analysis
7.2 Recommendations for Operators
7.3 Recom= mendations for Infrastructure Vendors

List of Tables:

Table 1: RAN Compon= ent Segmentation by Technology
Table 2: Backhaul Technologies
Table= 3: Strategic Options for Operators
Table 4: RAN Revenues by Technology = ($ billions) 2010-2017
Table 5: Barriers and Risks with WiMAX
Table= 6: Key Small Cell Vendors
Table 7: Major Mobile Ethernet Backhaul Vend= ors
Table 8: Major Mobile Microwave Backhaul Vendors
Table 9: Asia P= acific Market Dynamics
Table 10: Leading Vendors by Key Technologies Table 11: Vendor Ranking by H1 2012 Revenues
Table 12: Vendor Market = Share 2010-2011
Table 13: SWOT Analysis

List of Figures:

Figure 1: Key Wirel= ess Technologies Used Across the Globe
Figure 2: 3GPP Wireless Technolo= gy Evolution
Figure 3: Global GSM Networks 1991 - 2011
Figure 4: Gl= obal GSM Subscription (Billions) 1991 - 2011
Figure 5: Global WCDMA and= HSPA Subscription (Millions) 2010 - 2017
Figure 6: Global WCDMA Subscri= ption (%) 2012
Figure 7: Global LTE Commercial Launches 2009-2012
F= igure 8: Global Smartphone Shipment (Millions) 2009-2017
Figure 9: Glob= al Mobile Handset vs. Smartphone Shipment (Millions) 2010-2017
Figure 1= 0: Global Smartphone Subscribers as a Percentage of the Mobile Subscribers = (Billions) 2010-2017
Figure 11: Global Mobile Subscriptions (Billions) = 2009-2017
Figure 12: Global Mobile Traffic (Exabyte) 2011-2017
Figu= re 13: Global 2G, 3G and 4G Wireless Infrastructure Revenues ($Millions) 20= 10 - 2017
Figure 14: Global 2G Vs. 4G Wireless Infrastructure Revenues = ($billions) 2011- 2017
Figure 15: Global Wireless RAN Revenues by Techn= ology ($Billions) 2010 - 2017
Figure 16: Global Mobile Subscription by = Technology (%) 2012
Figure 17: Global GSM RAN Revenues ($ Billions) 2010= - 2017
Figure 18: Global CDMA RAN Revenues (Billions) 2010 - 2017
F= igure 19: Global GSM Spend (%) 2011-2017
Figure 20: Global WCDMA RAN In= frastructure Revenues (Billions) 2010 - 2017
Figure 21: TD-SCDMA RAN Re= venues ($ Billions) 2010 - 2017
Figure 22: Global GSM and WCDMA RAN Reve= nues ($ Billions) 2010 - 2017
Figure 23: Global LTE RAN Infrastructure = Revenues (Billions) 2010 - 2017
Figure 24: Global WiMAX RAN Revenues (B= illions) 2010 - 2017
Figure 25: Global RAN Revenues by Technologies (%)= 2011 - 2017
Figure 26: Global BTS Unit Shipment 2011 - 2017
Figure = 27: Global Base Station Shipment by Region (%) 2011 - 2017
Figure 28: S= mall Cell Unit Shipments Revenue (USD Millions) 2011 - 2017
Figure 29: = Small Cell Unit Shipments (Thousands of Unit Shipments) 2010-2017 by Cell T= ype
Figure 30: Small Cell Market Share by Vendors (%) 2010-2011
Figur= e 31: 3G/4G Small Cell Unit Shipments Revenue by Region (USD Millions) 2011= - 2017
Figure 32: Small Cell Unit Shipments (Thousands of Unit Shipmen= ts) 2011 - 2017 by Region
Figure 33: Evolved Packet Core Revenues ($Mil= lion) 2011-2017
Figure 34: 3G Packet Core Revenues ($Million) 2011-2017=
Figure 35: HLR and MSC Revenues ($Million) 2011-2017
Figure 36: Gl= obal Spending on Mobile Backhaul Equipment ($billion): 2011 - 2017
Figu= re 37: Mobile Microwave Backhaul Market Share by Vendors (%) 2010-2011
= Figure 38: Mobile Backhaul Ethernet Market Share by Vendors (%) 2010-2011 <= BR>Figure 39: Spending on Mobile Backhaul by Technology (%) 2017
Figure= 40: Mobile Backhaul Market Revenues by Region ($ billions) 2011 - 2017 Figure 41: WiFi Offload Small Cell Infrastructure Market Share by Vendor: = 2010-2011
Figure 42: 2G, 3G and 4G Wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues b= y Region ($Millions) 2011 - 2017
Figure 43: 2G, 3G and 4G Wirelesses In= frastructure Market Share Comparison (%) by Region 2012-2017
Figure 44:= 2G, 3G and 4G Wirelesses Infrastructure Market Share by Region (%) 2012 Figure 45: 2G, 3G and 4G Wirelesses Infrastructure Market Share by Region= (%) 2017
Figure 46: North American 2G, 3G and 4G wirelesses Infrastruc= ture Revenues ($Million) 2010-2017
Figure 47: North American 2G/3G vs. = 4G wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues ($Million) 2010-2017
Figure 48: N= orth American 4G wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues ($Million) 2010-2017Figure 49: North American wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues by Technology= ($Million) 2010-2017
Figure 50: North American Core vs. RAN Wireless I= nfrastructure Revenues ($millions) 2010-2017
Figure 51: Asia Pacific 2G= , 3G and 4G wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues ($Million) 2011-2017
Fig= ure 52: Asia Pacific 2G/3G Vs. 4G wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues ($Mill= ion) 2011-2017
Figure 53: Asia Pacific RAN Vs. Core wirelesses Infrastr= ucture Revenues ($Million) 2011-2017
Figure 54: Asia Pacific Wirelesses= Infrastructure Revenues by Technology ($Million) 2011-2017
Figure 55: W= estern Europe Wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues ($Million) 2011-2017
F= igure 56: Western Europe 2G/3G vs. 4G Wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues ($= Million) 2011-2017
Figure 57: Western Europe Wirelesses Infrastructure R= evenues ($Million) by Technology 2011-2017
Figure 58: Western Europe RA= N vs. Core Wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues ($Million) 2011-2017
Figur= e 59: Latin and Central America Wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues ($Millio= n) 2011-2017
Figure 60: Latin and Central America 2G/3G vs. 4G Wireless= es Infrastructure Revenues ($Million) 2011-2017
Figure 61: Latin and Ce= ntral America Wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues by Technology ($Million) 2= 011-2017
Figure 62: Latin and Central America Core Vs. RAN Wirelesses I= nfrastructure Revenues ($Million) 2011-2017
Figure 63: Eastern Europe W= irelesses Infrastructure Revenues ($Million) 2011-2017
Figure 64: Easte= rn Europe 2G/3G vs. 4G Wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues ($Million) 2011-2= 017
Figure 65: Eastern Europe Wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues by Tech= nology ($Million) 2011-2017
Figure 66: Eastern Europe Core vs. RAN Wire= lesses Infrastructure Revenues ($Million) 2011-2017
Figure 67: Africa Wi= relesses Infrastructure Revenues ($Million) 2011-2017
Figure 68: Africa= Wirelesses 2G/3G vs. 4G Infrastructure Revenues ($Million) 2011-2017
Fi= gure 69: Africa Wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues by Technology ($Million)= 2011-2017
Figure 70: Africa Wirelesses Core vs. RAN Infrastructure Reve= nues ($Million) 2011-2017
Figure 71: Middle East Wirelesses Infrastructu= re Revenues ($Million) 2011-2017
Figure 72: Middle East 2G/3G Vs. 4G Wir= elesses Infrastructure Revenues ($Million) 2011-2017
Figure 73: Middle = East Wirelesses Infrastructure Revenues by Technology ($Million) 2011-2017<= BR>Figure 74: Vendor Market Share (%) 2010-2011

List of Companies Mentioned:

3GPP
Acme Packet
Actelis Adtran
ADVA
Airvana
Alcatel L= ucent
Alvarion
ANDA
Apertio
Argela
Axerra
BLiNQ Canoga Perkins
Celtro
Ciena
Cisco
Clavister
Clearwire =
Contela
ECI
Ericsson
FibroLAN
Fujitsu
Genband
H= atteras
HP
Huawei
Intel
Ip-Access
IPITEK
Juniper Metaswitch Networks
MetroPCS
Mindspeed
Motorola
MRV
N= EC
Nortel
Nokia Siemens Networks
NTT DoCoMo
Overture
Pos= itron
RAD
Samsung
Siklu
Softbank
Sonus Networks
Sta= rent Networks
Telco Systems
Telefonica
TeliaSonera
Tellabs =
Telrad
Thomson
Three
Turin
Ubee interactive
Ubiquis= ys
UTstarcom
Vodafone
Wavion
Yota
ZTE

Report Pricing:

Single User License: USD 2,500

Company Wide License: USD 3,500

Ordering Process:


Please contact Andy Silva on andy.silva@snsreports.com

And provide the following information:
Report Title -
Report Licen= se - (Single User/Company Wide)
Name -
Email -
Job Title -
Comp= any -
Invoice Address

Please contact me if you have= any questions, or wish to purchase a copy

I look forward to hearing from you= .

Kind Regards

Andy Silva

Marketing Executive

Signals and Systems Telecom

Reef Tower
Jumeirah Lake Towers
Sheikh = Zayed Road
Dubai, UAE

www.sns= telecom.com

 

 

To unsubscribe please click on= the link below or send an email with unsubscribe in the subject line to: <= A href=3D"mailto:info@snsreports.com">info@snsreports.com

Remove me from your mailing list

 ------=_NextPart_001_6ABB_258E4DA1.73F46CC9-- From a.bakker@vu.nl Sun Dec 2 23:10:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C45AC21F8A6C for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2012 23:10:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.575 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.575 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.929, BAYES_20=-0.74, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SHw+BqOFHoIZ for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2012 23:10:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailin.vu.nl (mailin.vu.nl [130.37.164.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AC6A21F899B for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2012 23:10:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from PEXHB012B.vu.local (130.37.236.67) by mailin.vu.nl (130.37.164.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.298.4; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:10:37 +0100 Received: from [192.168.0.102] (130.37.238.20) by mails.vu.nl (130.37.236.67) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.298.4; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:10:37 +0100 Message-ID: <50BC5097.9010305@cs.vu.nl> Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:11:19 +0100 From: Arno Bakker User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120312 Thunderbird/11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ppsp , Martin Stiemerling Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [130.37.238.20] Subject: [ppsp] Peer protocol evaluation by Swedish university X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: arno@cs.vu.nl List-Id: discussing to draw up peer to peer streaming protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 07:10:45 -0000 Hi all a late addition to the WGLC discussion: A master student from KTH Sweden evaluated libswift, on which PPSPP is based for his master thesis. The flaws he found were in the peer discovery, piece picking and congestion control policies of the current implementation, not in the design. See http://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:568118/FULLTEXT01 CU, Arno From dusan.gabrijelcic@gmail.com Mon Dec 3 04:45:43 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B09121F870D for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 04:45:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id imj6CfvKrSft for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 04:45:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F258221F86F5 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 04:45:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ob0-f172.google.com with SMTP id za17so2645958obc.31 for ; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 04:45:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=2J2orN/NUtgOKHFaKHvhIz/K/kbrJG54ziNk3cH7VRA=; b=Qy5PhA08mVGwYbpYddNL4Zhmg/hh0amHgSPghbomCZlMRwERhjLbuFY0azqX090cij X6QRMj7xbtpiqU8unXBr++EhfbbUHshbzAfwffrH/Uuh2rPSoMqwqxX+49HWkzFzdNeu uaHFtR4eC9tZQ6iIpkZMlMOSGdqjGeyyA+HlBxJBi3WfgZT97Pzx6zQieAQqDfMF+Agx jv0Mc7nzc8sPxJ9ZQm/ET/6OR7J2gsm+v6p0qffokhWLawgYiwYO7t6ZuuQtrzVf3PMz r6De6m01RKDeAII6jun3oaqPUbKPZYatUBEYUg+mDP7j+qiRX8tNT94URg6bdkQT/kTS iKRQ== Received: by 10.182.64.14 with SMTP id k14mr4348830obs.72.1354538742246; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 04:45:42 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: dusan.gabrijelcic@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.10.104 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 04:45:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Dusan Gabrijelcic Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 13:45:21 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: TFgnnvtBqmoGV34ARZ1fhjfL9Ak Message-ID: To: ppsp@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [ppsp] Enhanced Closed Swarm draft X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: discussing to draw up peer to peer streaming protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 12:45:43 -0000 Dear all, the Enhanced Closed Swarm protocol draft has been submitted to IETF: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ppsp-gabrijelcic-ecs-00 The draft is almost identical to the one already sent to the list (24.10.). One additional paragraph (2nd) has been added to the Security consideration section for additional clarifications regarding protocol security. Any comments or suggestions are welcome. Kind regards, Dusan. On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Dusan Gabrijelcic wrote: > Dear all, > > please receive attached a draft on Enhanced Closed Swarm protocol. Though > the draft was submitted on time it has been unfortunately submitted under > wrong name with no time to correct it and it is at the moment not listed > under officially submitted drafts. We are posting the draft to the mailing > list in agreement with PPSP chairs, kindly allowing the post. The draft will > be submitted officially as soon as possible (after 5th of November). > > The draft covers Enhanced Closed Swarm protocol, an access control > mechanisms suitable for P2P content delivery systems and its application in > Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP). The draft will be briefly > presented on the forthcoming IETF meeting by Johan. > > Any comments or suggestions are welcome. > > Kind regards, Dusan. > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~ > Dusan Gabrijelcic > e-mail: dusan@e5.ijs.si -- ~~~~~~~~~~ Dusan Gabrijelcic e-mail: dusan@e5.ijs.si From a.bakker@vu.nl Thu Dec 6 05:07:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8F9F21F8646 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 05:07:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.039 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.039 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.465, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0y1CDBeOMAvw for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 05:07:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailin.vu.nl (mailin.vu.nl [130.37.164.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8476B21F860D for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 05:07:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from PEXHB011A.vu.local (130.37.236.64) by mailin.vu.nl (130.37.164.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.298.4; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:07:37 +0100 Received: from [130.161.211.249] (130.37.238.20) by mails.vu.nl (130.37.236.64) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.298.4; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:07:37 +0100 Message-ID: <50C098C4.4050209@cs.vu.nl> Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:08:20 +0100 From: Arno Bakker User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120312 Thunderbird/11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ppsp References: <20121206130128.24588.41314.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20121206130128.24588.41314.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20121206130128.24588.41314.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [130.37.238.20] Subject: [ppsp] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-04.txt X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: arno@cs.vu.nl List-Id: discussing to draw up peer to peer streaming protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 13:07:46 -0000 Hi I updated the peer protocol draft, see revision history below. CU, Arno ============== -04 2012-11-07 Minor revision * Corrected typos. * Added empty protocol option list when HANDSHAKE is used for explicitly closing a channel in the UDP encapsulation. * Corrected definition of a range chunk specification to be a single (start,end) pair. To send multiple disjunct ranges multiple messages should be used. * Clarified that in a range chunk specification the end is inclusive. I.e., [start,end] not [start,end) * Added PEX_REScert message to carry a membership certificate. Renamed PEX_RES to PEX_RESv4. * Added a guideline about private and link-local addresses in PEX_RES messages. * Defined the format of the public key that is used as swarm ID in live streaming. * Clarified that a HANDSHAKE message must be the first message in a datagram. * Clarified sending INTEGRITY messages ahead in a separate datagram if not all necessary hashes that still need to be sent and the chunk fit into a single datagram. Defined an order for the INTEGRITY messages. * Clarified rare case of sending multiple DATA messages in one datagram. * Clarified UDP datagrams carrying PPSPP should adhere to the network's MTU to avoid IP fragmentation. * Defined value for version protocol option. * Added small clarifications and corrected typos. * Extended versioning scheme to Min/max versioning scheme defined in [RFC6709], Section 4.1, following Riccardo Bernardini's suggestion. * Processed comments on unclear phrasing from Riccardo Bernardini. * Added a guideline on when to declare a peer dead. * Made sure all essential references are listed as Normative references following RFC3967. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-04.txt Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 05:01:28 -0800 From: To: CC: , A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-04.txt has been successfully submitted by Arno Bakker and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol Revision: 04 Title: Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP) Creation date: 2012-12-06 WG ID: ppsp Number of pages: 57 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-04.txt Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-04 Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-04 Abstract: The Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP) is a transport protocol for disseminating the same content to a group of interested parties in a streaming fashion. PPSPP supports streaming of both pre-recorded (on-demand) and live audio/video content. It is based on the peer-to-peer paradigm, where clients consuming the content are put on equal footing with the servers initially providing the content, to create a system where everyone can potentially provide upload bandwidth. It has been designed to provide short time-till- playback for the end user, and to prevent disruption of the streams by malicious peers. PPSPP has also been designed to be flexible and extensible. It can use different mechanisms to optimize peer uploading, prevent freeriding, and work with different peer discovery schemes (centralized trackers or Distributed Hash Tables). It supports multiple methods for content integrity protection and chunk addressing. Designed as a generic protocol that can run on top of various transport protocols, it currently runs on top of UDP using LEDBAT for congestion control. The IETF Secretariat From rui.cruz@ieee-pt.org Fri Dec 7 05:39:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7435121F86B9 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2012 05:39:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.597 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_FONT_SIZE_LARGE=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 31qoIPmylY1e for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2012 05:39:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0-f174.google.com [209.85.212.174]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 087EB21F86EB for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2012 05:39:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wi0-f174.google.com with SMTP id hm9so1368239wib.13 for ; Fri, 07 Dec 2012 05:39:21 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=sender:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to:x-mailer:x-gm-message-state; bh=ZTtYhYeaS10xtYFQ31Xnfae3EtPpFAvNtPa8gwnV9TA=; b=lslrwSH+iZ6y7AtNCKAuvDq5czfcvhAgSmcrEtA+iNsxmrX+6aAU0t1vNV0Ya4Cmj6 cQ2twEVIpwfFldr3c9agEudxc7mjb8LC1wcFicSi4foltIaeoRq9i7SW9pKmWB7P8ZDG pHbNebvbIJXetqJZLWJ1Zm6GUgJd43AZNy035JjfgDU7SSfM8mUTbl3YZN3mSkQfEieN keUCgm4lwnplV6is0TBngCk9RLf4e5jDf6XCty6B6feb5PVtGPTrbWAhkcTBFPhpdUlW z2Kp/+KvwzPD3FKZrKrgXWLRp9sJiOC5EHXfRLtkGqjstTjfpZFNZ/ny6GmoFgrdBYWw AxLw== Received: by 10.216.194.142 with SMTP id m14mr2025970wen.108.1354887561379; Fri, 07 Dec 2012 05:39:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from airia.casa (89-180-19-168.net.novis.pt. [89.180.19.168]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id en20sm15685759wid.4.2012.12.07.05.39.19 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 07 Dec 2012 05:39:20 -0800 (PST) Sender: Rui Cruz Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_89BCAFFE-92B2-46A6-A691-663D5FD992F4" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) From: Rui Cruz In-Reply-To: <50ACCF90.6080308@cs.vu.nl> Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 13:39:17 +0000 Message-Id: <67029FDA-544B-4D28-AC12-A36EDC73957B@ieee.org> References: <1388AC0A-2E2E-4EE5-8868-688E7BE6E252@cisco.com> <50A21BF4.9010102@cs.vu.nl> <52529918-0790-47C2-84D0-A1D11FE14129@ieee.org> <50A344CA.6060307@cs.vu.nl> <35D4DB2A-7468-490C-8147-FA9E5FF69B50@ieee.org> <50ACCF90.6080308@cs.vu.nl> To: arno@cs.vu.nl X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmY4bjnhOdObCv141H44m6ABxdlMRKmTYKxxJaa5pNZCYMLynL3EebDtdTrCCllcxuQKMdy Cc: Rui Cruz , ppsp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ppsp] Request: draft-cruz-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol as WG item X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: discussing to draw up peer to peer streaming protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 13:39:24 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_89BCAFFE-92B2-46A6-A691-663D5FD992F4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Arno, All Please see inline... *<[:{) ho ho ho Regards, Rui Cruz rui.cruz@ieee.org IST/INESC-ID/INOV - Lisbon, Portugal __________________________________________ ppsp mailing list ppsp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp On 21/11/2012, at 12:56, Arno Bakker wrote: > Hi Rui et al, >=20 > please see inline. >=20 > On 14/11/2012 13:36, Rui Cruz wrote: >=20 >> The CONNECT message in the base protocol is restricted to certain >> conditions. >=20 > IMHO, these restrictions on CONNECT could be lifted to allow it to be = used for refreshing registrations, yielding a very simple 1 message = protocol. >=20 Perhaps I oversimplified my explanation (in terms of protocol = semantics). =20 The protocol, as a matter of fact, only uses one message, i.e., a POST = request message, and the corresponding response (it is a = request-response protocol). Each POST carries (as message body) "action" signals or "information = (on status or statistics)" signals.=20 For "actions" the Request method name to be used is CONNECT.=20 For "information" the Request method name to be used is STAT_REPORT. Responses to requests correspond to "Status-Codes" and may carry a = Response body with the results of the corresponding requested "actions" = or the acknowledge of reception of the "information".=20 =46rom that, it is not logic to send an "action" request just to provide = "status/statistic" information. >=20 >>> But if it is currently not possible to implement a tracker service >>> that offers this functionality and is secure in a malicious >>> environment, the support for it should not be in the tracker = protocol, >>> IMHO. >> I do not agree with your position stating that a (global) trust >> functionality is "not possible" to be offered. >> An implementation of a tracker service can perfectly offer a trust >> functionality. It might not be "global" but can be offered. >> In EU Project SARACEN we have an implementation of a trust/reputation >> functionality. >=20 > Let me phrase it differently: Can you build a PPSP-based YouTube that = securely uses this property-based peer selection? If not, the draft = should make it clear that property-based selections can only be safely = used under specific conditions. You are mentioning a completely different type of approach in terms of = access to contents.=20 Youtube allows anyone to individually receive the stream (in some rare = exceptions allowing to download the content).=20 But to upload contents, users are required to be registered, and = consequently authenticated, before being able to upload. And even so, = contents may be banned if some specific conditions are met. In a P2P environment with a Tracker service, if the tracker is able to = filter peers from a swarm, based on location properties, the selection = is not done under "specific conditions" but just on network topology = properties, independently of the possible "malicious intentions" of some = of the peers in the swarm.=20 But if the properties of peers are related with activity or = capabilities, then I agree with you that a selection based on those = properties would only be considered "safe" if the requesting peers are = trusted and well known. We can add these concerns to the draft document. =20 >=20 > CU, > Arno >=20 > _______________________________________________ > ppsp mailing list > ppsp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp --Apple-Mail=_89BCAFFE-92B2-46A6-A691-663D5FD992F4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Hi = Arno, All

Please see inline...
On 21/11/2012, at 12:56, Arno Bakker <arno@cs.vu.nl> wrote:

Hi Rui et = al,

please see inline.

On 14/11/2012 13:36, Rui Cruz = wrote:

The CONNECT message in the base = protocol is restricted to = certain
conditions.

IMHO, these restrictions on = CONNECT could be lifted to allow it to be used for refreshing = registrations, yielding a very simple 1 message = protocol.

Perhaps I oversimplified my = explanation (in terms of protocol semantics).
 
The = protocol, as a matter of fact, only uses one message, i.e., a = POST request message, and the corresponding response (it is a = request-response protocol).

Each POST = carries (as message body) =  "action" signals or "information (on status or = statistics)" signals. 
For "actions" the Request method = name to be used is CONNECT. 
For "information" the = Request method name to be used is STAT_REPORT.
Responses = to requests correspond to "Status-Codes" and may carry a = Response body with the results of the corresponding requested = "actions" or the acknowledge of reception of = the "information". 

=46rom that, it = is not logic to send an "action" request just to provide = "status/statistic" information.


But = if it is currently not possible to implement a tracker service
that = offers this functionality and is secure in a malicious
environment, = the support for it should not be in the tracker = protocol,
IMHO.
I do not agree with your position = stating that a (global) trust
functionality is "not possible" to be = offered.
An implementation of a tracker service can perfectly offer a = trust
functionality. It might not be "global" but can be = offered.
In EU Project SARACEN we have an implementation of a = trust/reputation
functionality.

Let me phrase it = differently: Can you build a PPSP-based YouTube that securely uses this = property-based peer selection? If not, the draft should make it clear = that property-based selections can only be safely used under specific = conditions.
You are mentioning a completely different = type of approach in terms of access to contents. 
Youtube = allows anyone to individually receive the stream (in some rare = exceptions allowing to download the content). 
But to = upload contents, users are required to be registered, and consequently = authenticated, before being able to upload. And even so, contents may be = banned if some specific conditions are met.

In = a P2P environment with a Tracker service, if the tracker is able to = filter peers from a swarm, based on location properties, the selection = is not done under "specific conditions" but just on network topology = properties, independently of the possible "malicious intentions" of some = of the peers in the swarm. 

But if the = properties of peers are related with activity or capabilities, then I = agree with you that a selection based on those properties would only be = considered "safe" if the requesting peers are trusted and well = known.

We can add these concerns to the draft = document.  

CU,
=    Arno

____________________________________________= ___
ppsp mailing list
ppsp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/ma= ilman/listinfo/ppsp

= --Apple-Mail=_89BCAFFE-92B2-46A6-A691-663D5FD992F4-- From adamsobieski@hotmail.com Thu Dec 13 09:10:53 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FD4C21F8A0F for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:10:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.076 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.076 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.531, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yzCZh5TlzZA6 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:10:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from snt0-omc3-s43.snt0.hotmail.com (snt0-omc3-s43.snt0.hotmail.com [65.54.51.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C4E921F8A03 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:10:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from SNT002-W14 ([65.55.90.137]) by snt0-omc3-s43.snt0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:10:48 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [174.100.43.136] X-EIP: [AItMmScqtXEltqCvmjFvicvJW4yaexY+] X-Originating-Email: [adamsobieski@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_b260ce9d-2699-42c9-a0d1-cfe152e6e02e_" From: Adam Sobieski To: "ppsp@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:10:46 +0000 Importance: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Dec 2012 17:10:48.0592 (UTC) FILETIME=[CBF4F100:01CDD954] Subject: [ppsp] =?windows-1256?q?Peer-to-Peer_Multimedia_Answering_Machine?= =?windows-1256?q?_Technology=FE?= X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: discussing to draw up peer to peer streaming protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:10:53 -0000 --_b260ce9d-2699-42c9-a0d1-cfe152e6e02e_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1256" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SW50ZXJuZXQgRW5naW5lZXJpbmcgVGFzayBGb3JjZSwNClBlZXItdG8tUGVlciBTdHJlYW1pbmcg UHJvdG9jb2wgV29ya2luZyBHcm91cCwNCiANCkdyZWV0aW5ncy4gV2ViUlRDIGlzIGEgY29udGVt cG9yYXJ5IHRlY2hub2xvZ3kgYW5kIHBlcnRhaW5zIHRvIHZpZGVvIGNhbGxzLCBjb25mZXJlbmNl cywgYW5kIHBvdGVudGlhbGx5IHRvIHZpZGVvIGZvcnVtcy4gV2ViUlRDIGRvZXMgaW5jbHVkZSBQ MlAgdGVjaG5vbG9naWVzIGFuZCBJIHdvdWxkIGxpa2UgdG8gZGVzY3JpYmUgYSBzY2VuYXJpbyB3 aXRoIHJlZ2FyZCB0byB0aGUgUDJQIGRpc3RyaWJ1dGVkIHN0b3JhZ2Ugb2YgaHlwZXJ0ZXh0LCBh dWRpbyBhbmQgdmlkZW8gbWVzc2FnZXMsIHdpdGggZmVhdHVyZXMgYW5kIGZ1bmN0aW9uYWxpdHkg ZmFjaWxpdGF0aW5nIFAyUCBtdWx0aW1lZGlhIGFuc3dlcmluZyBtYWNoaW5lIHRlY2hub2xvZ3ku DQoNClNjZW5hcmlvOg0KIA0KUGVyc29uIEEgY2FsbHMgUGVyc29uIEIuIFBlcnNvbiBBIG1pZ2h0 IGtub3cgd2hldGhlciBQZXJzb24gQiB3YXMgb25saW5lIG9yIG9mZmxpbmUgYmVmb3JlIHRoZXkg Y29tbWVuY2VkIGEgY29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBhY3Rpdml0eS4gSWYgUGVyc29uIEIgaXMgb25saW5l LCB0aGUgZGF0YSBtb3Rpb24gaXMgYXMgcGVyIFdlYlJUQy4gSWYgUGVyc29uIEIgaXMgb2ZmbGlu ZSwgdGhleSBjb3VsZCBoYXZlIGFuIGFuc3dlcmluZyBtYWNoaW5lIG11bHRpbWVkaWEgY2xpcCBh dmFpbGFibGUgb24gYSBncm91cCBvZiBub2RlcyB3aGljaCB0aGV5IGhhdmUgZGVzaWduYXRlZCwg Zm9yIGV4YW1wbGUgcGVyIGEgc29jaWFsIG5ldHdvcmsgZ3JhcGguDQoNClBlcnNvbiBBIGNhbiB3 YXRjaCBQZXJzb24gQidzIHN0cmVhbWluZyBhbnN3ZXJpbmcgbWFjaGluZSBjbGlwIG9yIHNraXAg dG8gbGVhdmluZyBhIG1lc3NhZ2UuIElmIFBlcnNvbiBBIGxlYXZlcyBhIG1lc3NhZ2UsIHRoYXQg c3RyZWFtaW5nIHZpZGVvIG1lc3NhZ2UgaXMgc3RvcmVkIG9uIGEgZ3JvdXAgb2Ygbm9kZXMsIHBv c3NpYmx5IHRoZSB1bmlvbiBvZiB0aGUgdHdvIGdyb3VwcyBvZiBub2RlcyBkZXNpZ25hdGVkIGJ5 IGJvdGggUGVyc29uIEEgYW5kIFBlcnNvbiBCLiBXaGVuIFBlcnNvbiBCIGNvbWVzIG9ubGluZSwg d2l0aGluIGEgc3lzdGVtLXNwZWNpZmljIGR1cmF0aW9uIG9mIHRpbWUsIGUuZy4gOTAgZGF5cyBv ciAxIHllYXIsIHRoZSBwb3J0aW9ucyBvZiBkYXRhIGFyZSBkb3dubG9hZGVkIGJ5IHRoZW0sIHNl Z21lbnRlZCBkb3dubG9hZGluZywgYW5kIHBvc3NpYmx5IHdpdGggc29tZXRoaW5nIGxpa2UgYSBC SVRTIDQuMCsgdGVjaG5vbG9neS4NCiANCklmIFBlcnNvbiBCIGNob29zZXMgdG8gdmlldyBhbnkg b2YgdGhlIHN0cmVhbWFibGUgbWVkaWEgZHVyaW5nIHRoYXQgaW5pdGlhbCBwaGFzZSwgd2hpY2gg bWlnaHQgbm90IGJlIHVuY29tbW9uLCBhIGxvZyBvbiBhbmQgY2hlY2sgbWVzc2FnZXMgcGF0dGVy biwgdGhlIHNlZ21lbnRlZCBkb3dubG9hZGluZyBjYW4gdG9nZ2xlIHRvIGEgc3RyZWFtaW5nIHZh cmlldHkgb2YgZG93bmxvYWQsIGluY2x1ZGluZyB2YXJpYWJsZSBiaXRyYXRlIHN0cmVhbWluZy4g RXZlbiBhZnRlciBQZXJzb24gQiBtaWdodCB3YXRjaCByZWFsLXRpbWUgc2VnbWVudGVkIGRvd25s b2FkcyBvZiB2YXJpYWJsZS1iaXRyYXRlIHN0cmVhbWluZyBtdWx0aW1lZGlhLCB0aGUgZW50aXJl dHkgb2YgdGhlaXIgaGlnaC1iaXRyYXRlIG1lc3NhZ2VzIGNvdWxkIGJlIGRvd25sb2FkZWQgYW5k IHN0b3JlZCBieSBQZXJzb24gQiB1bmxlc3Mgb3IgdW50aWwgUGVyc29uIEIgaW5kaWNhdGVkIG90 aGVyd2lzZS4NCg0KDQpWaWRlbyBjYWxsaW5nIGFuZCB2aWRlbyBjb25mZXJlbmNpbmcgaGF2ZSBi ZWVuIGlsbHVzdHJhdGVkIHdpdGggV2ViUlRDIHRlY2hub2xvZ2llcywgdmlkZW8gZm9ydW1zIG1h eSBiZSByZWFsaXplZCB1cGNvbWluZywgYW5kIHdlIGNhbiBlbnZpc2lvbiwgcmVzZWFyY2ggYW5k IGRldmVsb3AgZmVhdHVyZXMgZm9yIFAyUCB2aWRlbyBjb21tdW5pY2F0aW9uIHN5c3RlbXMsIFAy UCBoeXBlcnRleHQsIGF1ZGlvIGFuZCB2aWRlbyBzeXN0ZW1zLCBtdWx0aW1lZGlhIHN5c3RlbXMs IGluY2x1ZGluZyBQMlAgYW5zd2VyaW5nIG1hY2hpbmUgdGVjaG5vbG9naWVzIGFzIGRlc2NyaWJl ZC4NCg0KDQoNCktpbmQgcmVnYXJkcywNCg0KQWRhbSBTb2JpZXNraSAJCSAJICAgCQkgIA== --_b260ce9d-2699-42c9-a0d1-cfe152e6e02e_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1256" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWw+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjxzdHlsZT48IS0tDQouaG1tZXNzYWdlIFANCnsNCm1hcmdpbjowcHg7 DQpwYWRkaW5nOjBweA0KfQ0KYm9keS5obW1lc3NhZ2UNCnsNCmZvbnQtc2l6ZTogMTJwdDsNCmZv bnQtZmFtaWx5OkNhbGlicmkNCn0NCi0tPjwvc3R5bGU+PC9oZWFkPg0KPGJvZHkgY2xhc3M9J2ht bWVzc2FnZSc+PGRpdiBkaXI9J2x0cic+SW50ZXJuZXQgRW5naW5lZXJpbmcgVGFzayBGb3JjZSw8 YnIvPg0KUGVlci10by1QZWVyIFN0cmVhbWluZyBQcm90b2NvbCBXb3JraW5nIEdyb3VwLDxici8+ DQo8YnIvPiANCkdyZWV0aW5ncy4gV2ViUlRDIGlzIGEgY29udGVtcG9yYXJ5IHRlY2hub2xvZ3kg YW5kIHBlcnRhaW5zIHRvIHZpZGVvIGNhbGxzLCBjb25mZXJlbmNlcywgYW5kIHBvdGVudGlhbGx5 IHRvIHZpZGVvIGZvcnVtcy4gV2ViUlRDIGRvZXMgaW5jbHVkZSBQMlAgdGVjaG5vbG9naWVzIGFu ZCBJIHdvdWxkIGxpa2UgdG8gZGVzY3JpYmUgYSBzY2VuYXJpbyB3aXRoIHJlZ2FyZCB0byB0aGUg UDJQIGRpc3RyaWJ1dGVkIHN0b3JhZ2Ugb2YgaHlwZXJ0ZXh0LCBhdWRpbyBhbmQgdmlkZW8gbWVz c2FnZXMsIHdpdGggZmVhdHVyZXMgYW5kIGZ1bmN0aW9uYWxpdHkgZmFjaWxpdGF0aW5nIFAyUCBt dWx0aW1lZGlhIGFuc3dlcmluZyBtYWNoaW5lIHRlY2hub2xvZ3kuPEJSPg0KPGJyLz4NClNjZW5h cmlvOjxCUj4NCjxici8+IA0KUGVyc29uIEEgY2FsbHMgUGVyc29uIEIuIFBlcnNvbiBBIG1pZ2h0 IGtub3cgd2hldGhlciBQZXJzb24gQiB3YXMgb25saW5lIG9yIG9mZmxpbmUgYmVmb3JlIHRoZXkg Y29tbWVuY2VkIGEgY29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBhY3Rpdml0eS4gSWYgUGVyc29uIEIgaXMgb25saW5l LCB0aGUgZGF0YSBtb3Rpb24gaXMgYXMgcGVyIFdlYlJUQy4gSWYgUGVyc29uIEIgaXMgb2ZmbGlu ZSwgdGhleSBjb3VsZCBoYXZlIGFuIGFuc3dlcmluZyBtYWNoaW5lIG11bHRpbWVkaWEgY2xpcCBh dmFpbGFibGUgb24gYSBncm91cCBvZiBub2RlcyB3aGljaCB0aGV5IGhhdmUgZGVzaWduYXRlZCwg Zm9yIGV4YW1wbGUgcGVyIGEgc29jaWFsIG5ldHdvcmsgZ3JhcGguPEJSPg0KPGJyLz4NClBlcnNv biBBIGNhbiB3YXRjaCBQZXJzb24gQidzIHN0cmVhbWluZyBhbnN3ZXJpbmcgbWFjaGluZSBjbGlw IG9yIHNraXAgdG8gbGVhdmluZyBhIG1lc3NhZ2UuIElmIFBlcnNvbiBBIGxlYXZlcyBhIG1lc3Nh Z2UsIHRoYXQgc3RyZWFtaW5nIHZpZGVvIG1lc3NhZ2UgaXMgc3RvcmVkIG9uIGEgZ3JvdXAgb2Yg bm9kZXMsIHBvc3NpYmx5IHRoZSB1bmlvbiBvZiB0aGUgdHdvIGdyb3VwcyBvZiBub2RlcyBkZXNp Z25hdGVkIGJ5IGJvdGggUGVyc29uIEEgYW5kIFBlcnNvbiBCLiBXaGVuIFBlcnNvbiBCIGNvbWVz IG9ubGluZSwgd2l0aGluIGEgc3lzdGVtLXNwZWNpZmljIGR1cmF0aW9uIG9mIHRpbWUsIGUuZy4g OTAgZGF5cyBvciAxIHllYXIsIHRoZSBwb3J0aW9ucyBvZiBkYXRhIGFyZSBkb3dubG9hZGVkIGJ5 IHRoZW0sIHNlZ21lbnRlZCBkb3dubG9hZGluZywgYW5kIHBvc3NpYmx5IHdpdGggc29tZXRoaW5n IGxpa2UgYSBCSVRTIDQuMCsgdGVjaG5vbG9neS48QlI+DQo8YnIvPiANCklmIFBlcnNvbiBCIGNo b29zZXMgdG8gdmlldyBhbnkgb2YgdGhlIHN0cmVhbWFibGUgbWVkaWEgZHVyaW5nIHRoYXQgaW5p dGlhbCBwaGFzZSwgd2hpY2ggbWlnaHQgbm90IGJlIHVuY29tbW9uLCBhIGxvZyBvbiBhbmQgY2hl Y2sgbWVzc2FnZXMgcGF0dGVybiwgdGhlIHNlZ21lbnRlZCBkb3dubG9hZGluZyBjYW4gdG9nZ2xl IHRvIGEgc3RyZWFtaW5nIHZhcmlldHkgb2YgZG93bmxvYWQsIGluY2x1ZGluZyB2YXJpYWJsZSBi aXRyYXRlIHN0cmVhbWluZy4gRXZlbiBhZnRlciBQZXJzb24gQiBtaWdodCB3YXRjaCByZWFsLXRp bWUgc2VnbWVudGVkIGRvd25sb2FkcyBvZiB2YXJpYWJsZS1iaXRyYXRlIHN0cmVhbWluZyBtdWx0 aW1lZGlhLCB0aGUgZW50aXJldHkgb2YgdGhlaXIgaGlnaC1iaXRyYXRlIG1lc3NhZ2VzIGNvdWxk IGJlIGRvd25sb2FkZWQgYW5kIHN0b3JlZCBieSBQZXJzb24gQiB1bmxlc3Mgb3IgdW50aWwgUGVy c29uIEIgaW5kaWNhdGVkIG90aGVyd2lzZS48QlI+DQo8YnIvPg0KPGJyLz4NClZpZGVvIGNhbGxp bmcgYW5kIHZpZGVvIGNvbmZlcmVuY2luZyBoYXZlIGJlZW4gaWxsdXN0cmF0ZWQgd2l0aCBXZWJS VEMgdGVjaG5vbG9naWVzLCB2aWRlbyBmb3J1bXMgbWF5IGJlIHJlYWxpemVkIHVwY29taW5nLCBh bmQgd2UgY2FuIGVudmlzaW9uLCByZXNlYXJjaCBhbmQgZGV2ZWxvcCBmZWF0dXJlcyBmb3IgUDJQ IHZpZGVvIGNvbW11bmljYXRpb24gc3lzdGVtcywgUDJQIGh5cGVydGV4dCwgYXVkaW8gYW5kIHZp ZGVvIHN5c3RlbXMsIG11bHRpbWVkaWEgc3lzdGVtcywgaW5jbHVkaW5nIFAyUCBhbnN3ZXJpbmcg bWFjaGluZSB0ZWNobm9sb2dpZXMgYXMgZGVzY3JpYmVkLjxCUj4NCjxici8+DQo8YnIvPg0KPGJy Lz4NCktpbmQgcmVnYXJkcyw8YnIvPg0KPGJyLz4NCkFkYW0gU29iaWVza2kgCQkgCSAgIAkJICA8 L2Rpdj48L2JvZHk+DQo8L2h0bWw+ --_b260ce9d-2699-42c9-a0d1-cfe152e6e02e_-- From peer2peer@gmail.com Thu Dec 13 09:42:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D5E621F89C3 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:42:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KpobE57r6FUz for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:42:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com [209.85.212.180]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFD4E21F89D2 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:42:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id hj13so1829365wib.13 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:42:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=QnEF1nA9mqRnqmCydufuGsUESCze1thd/F/CsACV+uY=; b=DYpqR2J2typHu3csAjRHdoS2TfIoJdH4jDBaUOh6tuB1psctJhXmI/xm05qmggk+j2 990vSUgdoZCDOHgmlQCOYZoPYmR6u3a0nCI6c+wHFLYZa3Mvsiu64VtrmrU+cao0Hi3o hKlXF+9PF0tDazK8u7WMTQYv4hQNETZCb2/W83Jr1SX1NlHEqgd15I2+awM6sRA2J8Yp Brxe3wU1SF2FZoh7jyG9YkedPv0fmRr56Wt/i7jT74CfAUo6uQ5dNBpBjWQ8FP8pR/TC gyqPR4fwgGyHUeLqpjvyn8Jz3zsx0uKTzSz6z20BEs5m5s3HX/6weEhPDA1yFbhsBITc U0vg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.76.237 with SMTP id n13mr9907843wjw.57.1355420522283; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:42:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.79.80 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:42:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 18:42:02 +0100 Message-ID: From: Johan Pouwelse To: Adam Sobieski Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "ppsp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ppsp] Peer-to-Peer Multimedia Answering Machine Technology X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: discussing to draw up peer to peer streaming protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:42:23 -0000 Dear Adam, Yes, WebRTC has many links and similarities to our PPSP work. I've been attending their IETF meetings and discussed in details with some of the browser creators what could be done. At this point the bottleneck is the usual I believe: development effort. We have now a mature PPSP-compliant streaming implementation which could be easily adapted for VOIP and WebRTC usage in scenarios you describe. https://github.com/triblerteam/libswift/ You have time to turn your idea into a demo for next IETF? -j On 13 December 2012 18:10, Adam Sobieski wrote: > Internet Engineering Task Force, > Peer-to-Peer Streaming Protocol Working Group, > > Greetings. WebRTC is a contemporary technology and pertains to video calls, > conferences, and potentially to video forums. WebRTC does include P2P > technologies and I would like to describe a scenario with regard to the P2P > distributed storage of hypertext, audio and video messages, with features > and functionality facilitating P2P multimedia answering machine technology. > > Scenario: > > Person A calls Person B. Person A might know whether Person B was online or > offline before they commenced a communication activity. If Person B is > online, the data motion is as per WebRTC. If Person B is offline, they could > have an answering machine multimedia clip available on a group of nodes > which they have designated, for example per a social network graph. > > Person A can watch Person B's streaming answering machine clip or skip to > leaving a message. If Person A leaves a message, that streaming video > message is stored on a group of nodes, possibly the union of the two groups > of nodes designated by both Person A and Person B. When Person B comes > online, within a system-specific duration of time, e.g. 90 days or 1 year, > the portions of data are downloaded by them, segmented downloading, and > possibly with something like a BITS 4.0+ technology. > > If Person B chooses to view any of the streamable media during that initial > phase, which might not be uncommon, a log on and check messages pattern, the > segmented downloading can toggle to a streaming variety of download, > including variable bitrate streaming. Even after Person B might watch > real-time segmented downloads of variable-bitrate streaming multimedia, the > entirety of their high-bitrate messages could be downloaded and stored by > Person B unless or until Person B indicated otherwise. > > > Video calling and video conferencing have been illustrated with WebRTC > technologies, video forums may be realized upcoming, and we can envision, > research and develop features for P2P video communication systems, P2P > hypertext, audio and video systems, multimedia systems, including P2P > answering machine technologies as described. > > > > Kind regards, > > Adam Sobieski > > _______________________________________________ > ppsp mailing list > ppsp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp > From davidjonssonsweden@gmail.com Thu Dec 13 13:18:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12FD121F86FD for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 13:18:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ur7Rdm1YKrC7 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 13:18:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com (mail-vc0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF5C521F879F for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 13:18:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id fw7so3030982vcb.31 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 13:18:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=mfvh6pZzrg3kHoYl9Smv7/q5S8VGXxsrzb35biTFMH0=; b=ZDnaXbzeIvJPy6C4kPJbnfdV8vtPN/1lIActlXnBqvUq8YI/fPNRCQJhBRkZdqHvqv sGdZJmVBjRLtFVHqXalTGOBeBIcBruSSbPyX24iYbhEPoYJfjuCw59yLk0+76CifBtgc NY4NIUbn0ndJNLPPcAd3eUCcNZpK4TptaqWuumlb58x/BbFinhahrM0Vdzitl8ip7ril xL1iJicIjvBPrCAt4/ldQDSeQOf//Gw0Iky2w5nlDIcPzdd7wi7g44Kklo0zwCZJXbNs riweTy3pfSWGQ8R0Ah5iE5geSxS5HJkN0jiTxEUIaA/RvhIXIbsRkrJlzv+qiPXX17pm hkiQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.150.136 with SMTP id y8mr5820461vcv.34.1355433508324; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 13:18:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.108.70 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 13:18:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 22:18:28 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Jonsson To: Johan Pouwelse , "ppsp@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043d64b3c7c60004d0c27459 Subject: Re: [ppsp] Peer-to-Peer Multimedia Answering Machine Technology X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: discussing to draw up peer to peer streaming protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:18:32 -0000 --f46d043d64b3c7c60004d0c27459 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi all I try to imagine how WebRTC and PPSP could be combined. The main issue is that WebRTC is a browser builtin JavaScript lib which means that there is no common networking and storage. Would PPSP have to be be run over WebRTC DataChannel and SCTP? Should storage be done in RAM and/or with file dialogs? Translate C++ code to JavaScript? Seems to require a lot of development effort yes but the advantage to be able to run it straight away in a browser might be worth it. Another alternative is to use UDP or TCP sockets but that is only available in JavaScript for Chrome Apps. Using Chrome Apps would also enable file storage (without dialogs) . Automatic translation from C++ to JavaScript could be done with llvm and emscripten but some manual work has to be done with the event handling and storage. Making a PPSP browser plugin or separate application could be easier but I imagine that fewer would install a browser plugin or a separate application. The JavaScript alternative is I think also easier to maintain and will also be usable on more platforms and browsers as WebRTC spreads. Best wishes David On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Johan Pouwelse wrote: > Dear Adam, > Yes, WebRTC has many links and similarities to our PPSP work. > > I've been attending their IETF meetings and discussed in details with > some of the browser creators what could be done. > At this point the bottleneck is the usual I believe: development effort. > > We have now a mature PPSP-compliant streaming implementation > which could be easily adapted for VOIP and WebRTC usage in > scenarios you describe. https://github.com/triblerteam/libswift/ > > You have time to turn your idea into a demo for next IETF? > -j > > On 13 December 2012 18:10, Adam Sobieski wrote: > > Internet Engineering Task Force, > > Peer-to-Peer Streaming Protocol Working Group, > > > > Greetings. WebRTC is a contemporary technology and pertains to video > calls, > > conferences, and potentially to video forums. WebRTC does include P2P > > technologies and I would like to describe a scenario with regard to the > P2P > > distributed storage of hypertext, audio and video messages, with features > > and functionality facilitating P2P multimedia answering machine > technology. > > > > Scenario: > > > > Person A calls Person B. Person A might know whether Person B was online > or > > offline before they commenced a communication activity. If Person B is > > online, the data motion is as per WebRTC. If Person B is offline, they > could > > have an answering machine multimedia clip available on a group of nodes > > which they have designated, for example per a social network graph. > > > > Person A can watch Person B's streaming answering machine clip or skip to > > leaving a message. If Person A leaves a message, that streaming video > > message is stored on a group of nodes, possibly the union of the two > groups > > of nodes designated by both Person A and Person B. When Person B comes > > online, within a system-specific duration of time, e.g. 90 days or 1 > year, > > the portions of data are downloaded by them, segmented downloading, and > > possibly with something like a BITS 4.0+ technology. > > > > If Person B chooses to view any of the streamable media during that > initial > > phase, which might not be uncommon, a log on and check messages pattern, > the > > segmented downloading can toggle to a streaming variety of download, > > including variable bitrate streaming. Even after Person B might watch > > real-time segmented downloads of variable-bitrate streaming multimedia, > the > > entirety of their high-bitrate messages could be downloaded and stored by > > Person B unless or until Person B indicated otherwise. > > > > > > Video calling and video conferencing have been illustrated with WebRTC > > technologies, video forums may be realized upcoming, and we can envision, > > research and develop features for P2P video communication systems, P2P > > hypertext, audio and video systems, multimedia systems, including P2P > > answering machine technologies as described. > > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Adam Sobieski > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ppsp mailing list > > ppsp@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp > > > _______________________________________________ > ppsp mailing list > ppsp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp > --f46d043d64b3c7c60004d0c27459 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all

I try to imagine how WebRTC and PPSP could be com= bined. The main issue is that WebRTC is a browser builtin JavaScript lib wh= ich means that there is no common networking and storage. Would PPSP have t= o be be run over=A0WebRTC=A0DataChannel and SCTP? Should storage be done in= RAM and/or with file dialogs? Translate C++ code to JavaScript? Seems to r= equire a lot of development effort yes but the advantage to be able to run = it straight away in a browser might be worth it.

Another alternative is to use UDP or TCP sockets but th= at is only available in JavaScript for Chrome Apps. Using Chrome Apps would= also enable file storage (without dialogs) .

Automatic translation from C++ to Java= Script could be done with llvm and emscripten but some manual work has to b= e done with the event handling and storage.

Making a PPSP browser plugin or separa= te application could be easier but I imagine that fewer would install a bro= wser plugin or a separate application. The JavaScript alternative is I thin= k also easier to maintain and will also be usable on more platforms and bro= wsers as WebRTC spreads.=A0

Best wishes=
David=A0

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Johan Pouwe= lse <peer2peer@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Adam,
Yes, WebRTC has many links and similarities to our PPSP work.

I've been attending their IETF meetings and discussed in details with some of the browser creators what could be done.
At this point the bottleneck is the usual I believe: development effort.
We have now a mature PPSP-compliant streaming implementation
which could be easily adapted for VOIP and WebRTC usage in
scenarios you describe. https://github.com/triblerteam/libswift/

You have time to turn your idea into a demo for next IETF?
=A0 -j

On 13 December 2012 18:10, Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Internet Engineering Task Force,
> Peer-to-Peer Streaming Protocol Working Group,
>
> Greetings. WebRTC is a contemporary technology and pertains to video c= alls,
> conferences, and potentially to video forums. WebRTC does include P2P<= br> > technologies and I would like to describe a scenario with regard to th= e P2P
> distributed storage of hypertext, audio and video messages, with featu= res
> and functionality facilitating P2P multimedia answering machine techno= logy.
>
> Scenario:
>
> Person A calls Person B. Person A might know whether Person B was onli= ne or
> offline before they commenced a communication activity. If Person B is=
> online, the data motion is as per WebRTC. If Person B is offline, they= could
> have an answering machine multimedia clip available on a group of node= s
> which they have designated, for example per a social network graph. >
> Person A can watch Person B's streaming answering machine clip or = skip to
> leaving a message. If Person A leaves a message, that streaming video<= br> > message is stored on a group of nodes, possibly the union of the two g= roups
> of nodes designated by both Person A and Person B. When Person B comes=
> online, within a system-specific duration of time, e.g. 90 days or 1 y= ear,
> the portions of data are downloaded by them, segmented downloading, an= d
> possibly with something like a BITS 4.0+ technology.
>
> If Person B chooses to view any of the streamable media during that in= itial
> phase, which might not be uncommon, a log on and check messages patter= n, the
> segmented downloading can toggle to a streaming variety of download, > including variable bitrate streaming. Even after Person B might watch<= br> > real-time segmented downloads of variable-bitrate streaming multimedia= , the
> entirety of their high-bitrate messages could be downloaded and stored= by
> Person B unless or until Person B indicated otherwise.
>
>
> Video calling and video conferencing have been illustrated with WebRTC=
> technologies, video forums may be realized upcoming, and we can envisi= on,
> research and develop features for P2P video communication systems, P2P=
> hypertext, audio and video systems, multimedia systems, including P2P<= br> > answering machine technologies as described.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Adam Sobieski
>
> _______________________________________________
> ppsp mailing list
> ppsp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp
>
_______________________________________________
ppsp mailing list
ppsp@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp

--f46d043d64b3c7c60004d0c27459-- From adamsobieski@hotmail.com Thu Dec 13 21:24:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D03E121F8882 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:24:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cptgvp3WzDQQ for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:24:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from snt0-omc1-s2.snt0.hotmail.com (snt0-omc1-s2.snt0.hotmail.com [65.55.90.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8EF521F8849 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:24:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from SNT002-W210 ([65.55.90.9]) by snt0-omc1-s2.snt0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:24:30 -0800 X-EIP: [Dm0jvOF5m6eiggPYQ/EQQH+eCwipJhXO] X-Originating-Email: [adamsobieski@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_86c22c00-2578-44be-baa2-41ee33f53471_" From: Adam Sobieski To: David Jonsson Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 05:24:30 +0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Dec 2012 05:24:30.0270 (UTC) FILETIME=[4AEBEDE0:01CDD9BB] Cc: "ppsp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ppsp] Peer-to-Peer Multimedia Answering Machine Technology X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: discussing to draw up peer to peer streaming protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 05:24:32 -0000 --_86c22c00-2578-44be-baa2-41ee33f53471_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable PPSP Working Group=2C David Jonsson=2C Greetings. Thank you for the C++ and JavaScript topics=2C a useful JavaScri= pt library idea is a distributed hash table library utilizing some of the n= ew P2P capabilities in web browsers. With DHT's=2C some of the storage top= ics also arise and=2C in addition to RAM=2C there is HTML5 web storage (htt= p://www.w3.org/TR/webstorage/). En route to a standard DHT JavaScript API= =2C JavaScript DHT libraries can explore the API and implementational topic= s=2C as well as those of other reusable P2P components=2C in web browsers. We can=2C as interesting=2C discuss architectures=2C designs=2C approaches = to implementing P2P multimedia answering machine systems=2C while consideri= ng reusable and multifunctional components and technologies=2C some of whic= h could be implemented as C++ or JavaScript libraries. Kind regards=2C Adam = --_86c22c00-2578-44be-baa2-41ee33f53471_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
PPSP Working Group=2C
David Jonsson=2C

Greetings. Thank you for the C++ and JavaScript topics=2C a useful JavaScri= pt library idea is a distributed hash table library utilizing some of the n= ew P2P capabilities in web browsers. With DHT's=2C some of the storage top= ics also arise and=2C in addition to RAM=2C there is HTML5 web storage (http://www.w3.org/TR/webstorage/<= /a>). En route to a standard DHT JavaScript API=2C JavaScript DHT librarie= s can explore the API and implementational topics=2C as well as those of ot= her reusable P2P components=2C in web browsers.

We can=2C as interesting=2C discuss architectures=2C designs=2C approaches = to implementing P2P multimedia answering machine systems=2C while consideri= ng reusable and multifunctional components and technologies=2C some of whic= h could be implemented as C++ or JavaScript libraries.



Kind regards=2C

Adam
= --_86c22c00-2578-44be-baa2-41ee33f53471_-- From a.bakker@vu.nl Mon Dec 17 23:34:34 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D23E21F8880 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 23:34:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.894 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.990, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Peb4vEUQGjUW for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 23:34:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailin.vu.nl (mailin.vu.nl [130.37.164.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38EB821F892E for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 23:34:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from PEXHB012B.vu.local (130.37.236.67) by mailin.vu.nl (130.37.164.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.298.4; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:34:34 +0100 Received: from [109.37.90.204] (130.37.238.20) by mails.vu.nl (130.37.236.67) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.298.4; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:34:23 +0100 Message-ID: <50D01CB3.6070206@cs.vu.nl> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:35:15 +0100 From: Arno Bakker User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rui Cruz References: <1388AC0A-2E2E-4EE5-8868-688E7BE6E252@cisco.com> <50A21BF4.9010102@cs.vu.nl> <52529918-0790-47C2-84D0-A1D11FE14129@ieee.org> <50A344CA.6060307@cs.vu.nl> <35D4DB2A-7468-490C-8147-FA9E5FF69B50@ieee.org> <50ACCF90.6080308@cs.vu.nl> <67029FDA-544B-4D28-AC12-A36EDC73957B@ieee.org> In-Reply-To: <67029FDA-544B-4D28-AC12-A36EDC73957B@ieee.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [130.37.238.20] Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ppsp] Request: draft-cruz-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol as WG item X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: arno@cs.vu.nl List-Id: discussing to draw up peer to peer streaming protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 07:34:34 -0000 Hi Rui et al On 07/12/2012 14:39, Rui Cruz wrote: > > From that, it is not logic to send an "action" request just to provide > "status/statistic" information. > Then I guess we have different opinions on this. But my proposal was just a simplification not a missing feature, so let's leave it. > But if the properties of peers are related with activity or > capabilities, then I agree with you that a selection based on those > properties would only be considered "safe" if the requesting peers are > trusted and well known. > > We can add these concerns to the draft document. Good. Please do. Happy holidays! Arno From zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com Wed Dec 19 18:45:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47E9321F88A3 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:45:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -97.948 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.739, BAYES_40=-0.185, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RELAY_IS_221=2.222, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OrQZClvuJkgh for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:45:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (imss.chinamobile.com [221.130.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0340621F889D for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:45:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1086AE446; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:45:57 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail.chinamobile.com (unknown [10.1.28.22]) by imss.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05FC5E43B; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:45:57 +0800 (CST) Received: from zyf-PC ([10.2.43.220]) by mail.chinamobile.com (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.6) with ESMTP id 2012122010455472-47833 ; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:45:54 +0800 Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:45:52 +0800 From: zhangyunfei To: "'Rui Cruz'" , ppsp References: <1388AC0A-2E2E-4EE5-8868-688E7BE6E252@cisco.com> <50A21BF4.9010102@cs.vu.nl> <52529918-0790-47C2-84D0-A1D11FE14129@ieee.org> <50A344CA.6060307@cs.vu.nl> <35D4DB2A-7468-490C-8147-FA9E5FF69B50@ieee.org> <50ACCF90.6080308@cs.vu.nl> <67029FDA-544B-4D28-AC12-A36EDC73957B@ieee.org>, <50D01CB3.6070206@cs.vu.nl> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.85[cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <2012122010455215506537@chinamobile.com> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-12-20 10:45:54, Serialize by Router on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-12-20 10:45:56, Serialize complete at 2012-12-20 10:45:56 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart844536186774_=----" X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.8231-6.8.0.1017-19466.000 X-TM-AS-Result: No--29.673-7.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--29.673-7.0-31-10;No--29.673-7.0-31-10 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No;No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No;No Subject: Re: [ppsp] Request: draft-cruz-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol as WG item X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: zhangyunfei List-Id: discussing to draw up peer to peer streaming protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 02:45:57 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_001_NextPart844536186774_=---- Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" RGVhciBhbGwsDQogICBUaGVyZSBpcyByb3VnaCBjb25zZW5zdXMgdG8gcHJvZ3Jlc3MgZHJhZnQt Y3J1ei1wcHNwLWJhc2UtdHJhY2tlci1wcm90b2NvbC0wMSB0byB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwIGl0ZW0g aW4gYW5kIGFmdGVyIElFVEYgODUuIERpc2N1c3Npb24gZm9yIHRoZSBjb25jZXJucyBoYXZlIGJl ZW4NCmxhdW5jaGVkIGluIHRoZSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3Qgd2l0aCBwcm9ncmVzcy4gICANCiAgICBS dWksIHBsZWFzZSBkbyB0aGlzIGFzIHNvb24gYXMgcG9zc2libGU6DQogICAgIC0gc3VibWl0IHRo ZSBkcmFmdCB3aXRoIHRoZSBuZXcgZmlsZW5hbWUgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wcHNwLXRyYWNrZXItcHJv dG9jb2wtMDAgIA0KICAgIEl0IGlzIHVuZGVyc3Rvb2QgdGhhdCB0aGVyZSBhcmUgYSBudW1iZXIg b2YgZGV0YWlscyB3aGljaCBtdXN0IGJlIGNoYW5nZWQgaW4gdGhlIHRyYWNrZXIgcHJvdG9jb2wg YXMgV0cgaXRlbSwgd2hpY2ggYXJlIGRpc2N1c3NpbmcgaW4gdGhlIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdC4NCiAg IFRoYW5rIHlvdSBhbmQgd2UgYXJlIGxvb2tpbmcgZm9yIHlvdXIgdGVjaG5pY2FsIGlucHV0IHRv IHRoZSB0cmFja2VyIHByb3RvY29soaMNCiAgIE1lcnJ5IFgnbWFzIGluIGFkdmFuY2UhDQoNCkJS DQpTdGVmYW5vICYgWXVuZmVpDQoNCiAgIA0KDQoNCg0KDQp6aGFuZ3l1bmZlaQ0KDQpGcm9tOiBB cm5vIEJha2tlcg0KRGF0ZTogMjAxMi0xMi0xOCAxNTozNQ0KVG86IFJ1aSBDcnV6DQpDQzogcHBz cA0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtwcHNwXSBSZXF1ZXN0OiBkcmFmdC1jcnV6LXBwc3AtYmFzZS10cmFj a2VyLXByb3RvY29sIGFzIFdHIGl0ZW0NCkhpIFJ1aSBldCBhbA0KDQpPbiAwNy8xMi8yMDEyIDE0 OjM5LCBSdWkgQ3J1eiB3cm90ZToNCj4NCj4gIEZyb20gdGhhdCwgaXQgaXMgbm90IGxvZ2ljIHRv IHNlbmQgYW4gImFjdGlvbiIgcmVxdWVzdCBqdXN0IHRvIHByb3ZpZGUNCj4gInN0YXR1cy9zdGF0 aXN0aWMiIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uLg0KPg0KDQpUaGVuIEkgZ3Vlc3Mgd2UgaGF2ZSBkaWZmZXJlbnQg b3BpbmlvbnMgb24gdGhpcy4gQnV0IG15IHByb3Bvc2FsIHdhcyANCmp1c3QgYSBzaW1wbGlmaWNh dGlvbiBub3QgYSBtaXNzaW5nIGZlYXR1cmUsIHNvIGxldCdzIGxlYXZlIGl0Lg0KDQoNCj4gQnV0 IGlmIHRoZSBwcm9wZXJ0aWVzIG9mIHBlZXJzIGFyZSByZWxhdGVkIHdpdGggYWN0aXZpdHkgb3IN Cj4gY2FwYWJpbGl0aWVzLCB0aGVuIEkgYWdyZWUgd2l0aCB5b3UgdGhhdCBhIHNlbGVjdGlvbiBi YXNlZCBvbiB0aG9zZQ0KPiBwcm9wZXJ0aWVzIHdvdWxkIG9ubHkgYmUgY29uc2lkZXJlZCAic2Fm ZSIgaWYgdGhlIHJlcXVlc3RpbmcgcGVlcnMgYXJlDQo+IHRydXN0ZWQgYW5kIHdlbGwga25vd24u DQo+DQo+IFdlIGNhbiBhZGQgdGhlc2UgY29uY2VybnMgdG8gdGhlIGRyYWZ0IGRvY3VtZW50Lg0K DQpHb29kLiBQbGVhc2UgZG8uDQoNCkhhcHB5IGhvbGlkYXlzIQ0KICAgICAgQXJubw0KDQoNCl9f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQpwcHNwIG1haWxp bmcgbGlzdA0KcHBzcEBpZXRmLm9yZw0KaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0 aW5mby9wcHNw ------=_001_NextPart844536186774_=---- Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312"
Dear all,
   There is rough consensus to&nbs= p;progress draft-cruz-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-01 to work= ing group item in and after IETF 85.&nb= sp;Discussion for=20 the concerns have been
launched in the mailing list with progress.   
   =20 Rui, please do this as soon as possible= :
    =20 - submit the draft with the new filenam= e draft-ietf-ppsp-tracker-protocol-00  
  =20  It is understood that there are a = ;number of details which must be changed&nbs= p;in the tracker protocol=20 as WG=20 item, which are discussing in the mailing&nb= sp;list.
  =20 Thank you and we are looking for your&n= bsp;technical input to the tracker protocol=A1=A3=
   Merry X'mas in advance!
 
BR
Stefano & Yunfei
 
   
 
zhangyunfei
 
From: Arno Bakker
Date: 2012-12-18 15:35
To: Rui Cruz
CC: ppsp
Subject: Re: [ppsp] Request:=20 draft-cruz-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol as WG item
Hi Rui et al
 
On 07/12/2012 14:39, Rui Cruz wrote:
>
>  From that, it is not logic&n= bsp;to send an "action" request just to = ;provide
> "status/statistic" information.
>
 
Then I guess we have different opinions=  on this. But my proposal was 
just a simplification not a missing fea= ture, so let's leave it.
 
 
> But if the properties of peers&nbs= p;are related with activity or
> capabilities, then I agree with yo= u that a selection based on those
> properties would only be considered&nbs= p;"safe" if the requesting peers are
> trusted and well known.
>
> We can add these concerns to = the draft document.
 
Good. Please do.
 
Happy holidays!
      Arno
 
 
_______________________________________________
ppsp mailing list
ppsp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp
------=_001_NextPart844536186774_=------ From sprevidi@cisco.com Fri Dec 21 05:30:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5623421F8964 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 05:30:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.932 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.333, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ofETT2ed9jfC for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 05:30:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CE8721F895C for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 05:30:18 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from stew-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qBLDUFNU011848 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:30:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from ams3-vpn-dhcp6470.cisco.com (ams3-vpn-dhcp6470.cisco.com [10.61.89.69]) by stew-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qBLDUDiH008610; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:30:13 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: stefano previdi In-Reply-To: <50C098C4.4050209@cs.vu.nl> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:30:12 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4E6E8537-16C6-4AFF-8881-C792EE51FFE5@cisco.com> References: <20121206130128.24588.41314.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <50C098C4.4050209@cs.vu.nl> To: arno@cs.vu.nl X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) Cc: ppsp Subject: Re: [ppsp] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-04.txt X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: discussing to draw up peer to peer streaming protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 13:30:19 -0000 Arno, All, Thanks for the update. I believe, unless anyone has a different opinion, the draft is now=20 mature for the next step (i.e.: IESG review) which is what we'll do=20 after the holiday break. Thanks, Happy Holidays and Happy New Year to everyone. Stefano & Yunfei. On Dec 6, 2012, at 2:08 PM, Arno Bakker wrote: > Hi >=20 > I updated the peer protocol draft, see revision history below. >=20 > CU, > Arno >=20 > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > -04 2012-11-07 Minor revision >=20 > * Corrected typos. >=20 > * Added empty protocol option list when HANDSHAKE is used for > explicitly closing a channel in the UDP encapsulation. >=20 > * Corrected definition of a range chunk specification to be a > single (start,end) pair. To send multiple disjunct ranges > multiple messages should be used. >=20 > * Clarified that in a range chunk specification the end is > inclusive. I.e., [start,end] not [start,end) >=20 > * Added PEX_REScert message to carry a membership certificate. > Renamed PEX_RES to PEX_RESv4. >=20 > * Added a guideline about private and link-local addresses in > PEX_RES messages. >=20 > * Defined the format of the public key that is used as swarm = ID > in live streaming. >=20 > * Clarified that a HANDSHAKE message must be the first message > in a datagram. >=20 > * Clarified sending INTEGRITY messages ahead in a separate > datagram if not all necessary hashes that still need to be > sent and the chunk fit into a single datagram. Defined an > order for the INTEGRITY messages. >=20 > * Clarified rare case of sending multiple DATA messages in one > datagram. >=20 > * Clarified UDP datagrams carrying PPSPP should adhere to the > network's MTU to avoid IP fragmentation. >=20 > * Defined value for version protocol option. >=20 > * Added small clarifications and corrected typos. >=20 > * Extended versioning scheme to Min/max versioning scheme > defined in [RFC6709], Section 4.1, following Riccardo > Bernardini's suggestion. >=20 > * Processed comments on unclear phrasing from Riccardo > Bernardini. >=20 > * Added a guideline on when to declare a peer dead. >=20 > * Made sure all essential references are listed as Normative > references following RFC3967. >=20 >=20 >=20 > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: New Version Notification for = draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-04.txt > Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 05:01:28 -0800 > From: > To: > CC: , >=20 >=20 > A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-04.txt > has been successfully submitted by Arno Bakker and posted to the > IETF repository. >=20 > Filename: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol > Revision: 04 > Title: Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP) > Creation date: 2012-12-06 > WG ID: ppsp > Number of pages: 57 > URL: = http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-04.txt > Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol > Htmlized: = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-04 > Diff: = http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-04 >=20 > Abstract: > The Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP) is a transport > protocol for disseminating the same content to a group of interested > parties in a streaming fashion. PPSPP supports streaming of both > pre-recorded (on-demand) and live audio/video content. It is based > on the peer-to-peer paradigm, where clients consuming the content = are > put on equal footing with the servers initially providing the > content, to create a system where everyone can potentially provide > upload bandwidth. It has been designed to provide short time-till- > playback for the end user, and to prevent disruption of the streams > by malicious peers. PPSPP has also been designed to be flexible and > extensible. It can use different mechanisms to optimize peer > uploading, prevent freeriding, and work with different peer = discovery > schemes (centralized trackers or Distributed Hash Tables). It > supports multiple methods for content integrity protection and chunk > addressing. Designed as a generic protocol that can run on top of > various transport protocols, it currently runs on top of UDP using > LEDBAT for congestion control. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > The IETF Secretariat >=20 > _______________________________________________ > ppsp mailing list > ppsp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp >=20 From zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com Mon Dec 24 01:05:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4578021F8802 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 01:05:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -96.519 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RDNS_NONE=0.1, RELAY_IS_221=2.222, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 00XPYSTYTwHj for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 01:05:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.chinamobile.com (unknown [221.176.64.232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 880A821F87F6 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 01:05:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[172.16.20.21]) by rmmx-oa_allagent02-12002 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee250d81ac8119-11119; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:05:12 +0800 (CST) X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee250d81ac8119-11119 Received: from zyf-PC (unknown[10.2.54.46]) by rmsmtp-oa_rmapp03-12003 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee350d81ac626f-036eb; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:05:12 +0800 (CST) X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee350d81ac626f-036eb Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:05:06 +0800 From: zhangyunfei To: "Riccardo Bernardini" , "arno@cs.vu.nl" References: <20121119114547.60502iibxkcnt0bf@webmail.uniud.it> <50ACCDF2.9070402@cs.vu.nl>, <20121123181328.10352avqtdet10oo@webmail.uniud.it> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.85[cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <2012122417050665094415@chinamobile.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart441141557735_=----" Cc: ppsp Subject: Re: [ppsp] peer protocol in WG last call X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: zhangyunfei List-Id: discussing to draw up peer to peer streaming protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 09:05:47 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_001_NextPart441141557735_=---- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGkgQXJubywNCiAgICBQbHMgc2VlIGlubGluZS4NCg0KDQpCUg0KWXVuZmVpDQoNCg0KDQoNCnpo YW5neXVuZmVpDQoNCkZyb206IFJpY2NhcmRvIEJlcm5hcmRpbmkNCkRhdGU6IDIwMTItMTEtMjQg MDE6MTMNClRvOiBhcm5vDQpDQzogcHBzcA0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtwcHNwXSBwZWVyIHByb3Rv Y29sIGluIFdHIGxhc3QgY2FsbA0KSGkgQXJubywNCnBsZWFzZSBzZWUgaW5saW5lLg0KDQpBcm5v IEJha2tlciA8YXJub0Bjcy52dS5ubD4gaGEgc2NyaXR0bzoNCg0KPiBIaSBSaWNjYXJkbw0KPg0K PiB0aGFua3MgZm9yIHRoZSBpbi1kZXB0aCByZXZpZXchIFBsZWFzZSBzZWUgaW5saW5lLg0KPg0K PiBPbiAxOS8xMS8yMDEyIDExOjQ1LCBSaWNjYXJkbyBCZXJuYXJkaW5pIHdyb3RlOg0KPj4NCj4+ IEZpcnN0LCB0aGUgZWFzeSBzdHVmZi4gIFNvbWUgdHlwb3M6DQo+Pg0KPg0KPiBXaWxsIGJlIGNv cnJlY3RlZC4NCj4NCj4NCj4+IE5vdyB0byB0aGUgImNvbnNpc3RlbnQiIHN0dWZmOg0KPj4NCj4+ ID09IFBhZ2UgOSwgU2VjdGlvbiAyLjMgPT0NCj4+ICAgICAiSWYgQSBjcmFzaGVzIHVuZ3JhY2Vm dWxseSwgcGVlcnMgc2hvdWxkIHJlbW92ZSBBIGZyb20gdGhlaXIgcGVlcg0KPj4gbGlzdCB3aGVu IHRoZXkgZGV0ZWN0IGl0IG5vIGxvbmdlciBzZW5kIG1lc3NhZ2VzLiINCj4+DQo+PiBIb3cgbXVj aCBpcyAidG9vIG11Y2giPyAgU2hvdWxkIHdlIGxlYXZlIHRoZSBwZWVyIGZyZWUNCj4+IHRvIGRl Y2lkZSBvciBzaG91bGQgd2UgZ2l2ZSBhdCBsZWFzdCBzb21lIGd1aWRlbGluZXM/DQo+Pg0KPg0K PiBZb3VyIHByb3Bvc2FsIG1ha2VzIHNlbnNlLCBJJ20ganVzdCBub3Qgc3VyZSB3aGF0IGlzIGN1 c3RvbWFyeSBpbiBSRkNzLg0KPiBTaG91bGQgdGhpcyBnbyBpbiB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0IG9yIGluIHRo ZSBwbGFubmVkIHVzYWdlIGd1aWRlPw0KPiBDaGFpcnM/DQo+DQpbWXVuZmVpXSBQZXJzb25hbGx5 IEkgd291bGQgc3VnZ2VzdCB0byBoYXZlIGEgbnVtYmVyIGV4cGxpY2l0ZWQgaW4gdGhpcyBkcmFm dCAoaW4gYSBtaW5pbXVtIGFjY29yZGFuY2Ugd2l0aCB0aGUgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzKSB0byBtYWtl IHN1cmUgdGhlIHN5c3RlbSB3b3JrcyBPSyBhbmQgaW4gdGhlIHVzYWdlIGd1aWRlLCBhIHJlY29t bWVuZGVkIG51bWJlciBpcyBnaXZlbi4NCg0KDQoNCj4+IEFsc28sIHRoZXJlIGlzIHRoZSBwcm9i bGVtIHRoYXQgd2hlbiBBIGNyYXNoZXMgaXQgcmVtYWlucyByZWdpc3RlcmVkDQo+PiB3aXRoIHRo ZSB0cmFja2VyLCBhbHRob3VnaCBtYXliZSB0aGlzIGlzIG5vdCBhIHByb2JsZW0gZGlyZWN0bHkN Cj4+IHJlbGF0ZWQgd2l0aCBQUFNQUC4NCj4+DQo+DQo+IFRoaXMgaXMgYWRkcmVzc2VkIGluIHRo ZSBjdXJyZW50IGJhc2UgdHJhY2tlciBwcm9wb3NhbC4gQSBwZWVyIG5lZWRzICANCj4gdG8gcGVy aW9kaWNhbGx5IHJlZnJlc2ggaXRzIHJlZ2lzdHJhdGlvbiB0byBzdGF5IHRyYWNrZWQuDQo+DQo+ DQo+PiA9PSBQYWdlIDEwLCBTZWN0aW9uIDMgPT0NCj4+DQo+PiAgICBJdCBpcyBzYWlkIHRoYXQg ImFic2VuY2Ugb2YgYW55IHJlc3BvbnNlIGluZGljYXRlcyBhbmQgZXJyb3IiIGFuZA0KPj4gdGhh dCAiSW52YWxpZCBtZXNzYWdlcyBhcmUgZGlzY2FyZGVkLCBhbmQgZnVydGhlciBjb21tdW5pY2F0 aW9uIHdpdGgNCj4+IHRoZSBwZWVyIFNIT1VMRCBiZSBzdG9wcGVkLiINCj4+DQo+PiBJc24ndCB0 aGlzIGNyaXRlcmlvbiBhIGJpdCB0b28gc3Ryb25nPyAgSWYgYSByZXF1ZXN0IGlzIGxvc3QgKGUu Zy4sDQo+PiBiZWNhdXNlIG9mIGNvbmdlc3Rpb24pLCB0aGUgc2VuZGVyIHdpbGwgaW50ZXJwcmV0 IHRoZSBhYnNlbmNlIG9mDQo+PiByZXNwb25zZSBhcyBhbiBlcnJvciBvciBhIGJhZCBwZWVyLiAg QWxzbywgaG93IGxvbmcgc2hvdWxkIGEgcGVlciB3YWl0DQo+PiBmb3IgZGVjbGFyaW5nIGFic2Vu Y2Ugb2YgcmVzcG9uc2U/ICBTaG91bGQgd2UgZ2l2ZSBndWlkZWxpbmVzPw0KPj4NCj4NCj4gV2Ug Y291bGQgZ2l2ZSBndWlkZWxpbmVzLCBidXQgYWdhaW4sIEknbSBub3Qgc3VyZSB0aGF0IGlzIGN1 c3RvbWFyeS4gIA0KPiBJIGFzc3VtZSBpbXBsZW1lbnRlcnMgYXBwbHkgY29tbW9uIHNlbnNlIGFu ZCwgZm9yIGV4YW1wbGUsIG5vdCAgDQo+IGRlY2xhcmUgYSBwZWVyIGRlYWQgYWZ0ZXIgMSBwYWNr ZXQgbG9zcyBvdmVyIGFuIHVucmVsaWFibGUgIA0KPiB0cmFuc3BvcnQuIEludmFsaWQgbWVzc2Fn ZXMgbWVhbiB0aGF0IHRoZXJlIGlzIHJlYWxseSBzb21ldGhpbmcgIA0KPiB3cm9uZyBhbmQgdGhh dCBzZW5kZXIgYW5kIHJlY2VpdmVyIGRvbid0IHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgZWFjaG90aGVyLCBzbyAgDQo+ IHRoZW4gdGhlIHJlY2VpdmVyIHJlYWxseSBzaG91bGQgc3RvcCB0aGUgaW50ZXJhY3Rpb24uDQo+ DQo+DQo+PiA9PSBQYWdlIDEyLCBTZWN0aW9uIDMuOS4gPT0NCj4+DQo+PiBJdCBpcyBzYWlkICJU aGUgQ0hPS0UgYW5kIFVOQ0hPS0UgbWVzc2FnZXMgYXJlIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uYWwgYXMgYSBwZWVy DQo+PiBpcyBub3QgcmVxdWlyZWQgdG8gcmVzcG9uZCB0byBSRVFVRVNUcy4iICBIb3dldmVyLCBp ZiBJIHVuZGVyc3RhbmQNCj4+IGNvcnJlY3RseSwgaWYgYSBwZWVyIGRvZXMgbm90IHJlc3BvbmQg dG8gUkVRVUVTVHMsIHRoZSBwZWVyIHdpbGwgYmUNCj4+IGJhbm5lZCwgYWNjb3JkaW5nIHRvIHRo ZSBjcml0ZXJpb24gaW4gU2VjdGlvbiAzLiAgQW0gSSBtaXNzaW5nDQo+PiBzb21ldGhpbmc/DQo+ Pg0KPg0KPiBObywgSSBkb24ndCB0aGluayB5b3UgYXJlIG1pc3Npbmcgc29tZXRoaW5nLiBUaGUg aWRlYSBpcyB0aGF0IGEgcGVlciAgDQo+IFAgcmVxdWVzdGluZyBjaHVua3MgZnJvbSBwZWVyIFEg d2lsbCBsb29rIGZvciBhbm90aGVyIHBlZXIgUiB3aGVuIFEgIA0KPiBkb2Vzbid0IHNlbmQgY2h1 bmtzLCBhbmQgUSBkaWRuJ3Qgc2VuZCBhIENIT0tFIHRvIGFubm91bmNlIHRoZSBmYWN0ICANCj4g aXQgd291bGRuJ3QgYmUgcmVzcG9uZGluZy4gUCBzaG91bGQgdGFrZSBpbnRvIGFjY291bnQgcGFj a2V0IGxvc3MgIA0KPiBhbmQgc3dhcm0gc2l6ZSAoaWYgdGhlcmUgaXMganVzdCAxIG90aGVyIHBl ZXIgaW4gdGhlIHN3YXJtLCBkb24ndCAgDQo+IGRpc2Nvbm5lY3QpLCBvZiBjb3Vyc2UuIElmIFAg aXMgbm90IGdldHRpbmcgY2h1bmtzIGZyb20gUSBpdCBtb3ZlcyBvbi4NCj4NCj4NCj4+ID09IFBh Z2UgMTMsIFNlY3Rpb24gMy4xMC4yID09DQo+Pg0KPj4gSSBoYXZlIGEgY291cGxlIG9mIGRvdWJ0 cyBhYm91dCB0aGlzDQo+Pg0KPj4gICAgKiBUaGlzIHN1cHBvc2VzIHRoYXQgQSBjYW4gc2VuZCBt ZXNzYWdlcyB0byBCLg0KPj4NCj4+ICAgICAgc28gdGhpcyBzaG91bGQgbm90IGJlIGEgcHJvYmxl bS4gV291bGQgaXQgYmUgd29ydGggYWRkaW5nIGENCj4+IHNlbnRlbmNlIHRvIGVtcGhhc2l6ZSB0 aGlzIHBvaW50PyAoZS5nLiAiTm90ZSB0aGF0IEEgY2FuIHNlbmQgYQ0KPj4gbWVzc2FnZSB0byBC IHNpbmNlIGJ5IDMuMTAuMSBBIG11c3QgaGF2ZSBleGNoYW5nZWQgbWVzc2FnZXMgd2l0aCBDLi4u Ig0KPg0KPiBTdXJlLg0KPg0KPg0KPj4gICAqIFdpdGggdGhpcyBtb2RlbCBvZiBob2xlIHB1bmNo aW5nLCB0aGUgcGVlciBjYW4gb25seSBjb25uZWN0DQo+PiBpbml0aWFsbHkgdG8gcGVlcnMgd2l0 aCBwdWJsaWMgSVA7IGluIHBhcnRpY3VsYXIsIHRoZSBhZGRyZXNzZXMNCj4+IHByb3ZpZGVkIGJ5 IHRoZSB0cmFja2VyIG11c3QgYmUgcHVibGljIElQcy4gIEFtIEkgcmlnaHQ/DQo+Pg0KPg0KPiBZ ZXMuDQo+DQo+DQo+PiA9PSBQYWdlIDE2LCBsYXN0IHBhcmFncmFwaCBvZiBTZWN0aW9uIDQuMy4x ID09DQo+Pg0KPj4gICAgIEltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uIG5vdGU6DQo+PiAgICAgICAgIFRvIHJlY29y ZCB3aGljaCBjaHVua3MgLi4uIGRpc2N1c3NlZCBpbiBkZXRhaWwgaW4gW0JJTk1BUF0NCj4+DQo+ DQo+IFlvdSBhcmUgcmlnaHQuDQo+DQo+DQo+PiA9PSBQYWdlIDE2LCBTZWN0aW9uIDQuMy4yID09 DQo+Pg0KPj4gQW5vdGhlciBzdHlsaXN0aWMgZGV0YWlsLiAgSXQgaXMgc2FpZCB0aGF0ICIuLi5h biBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbiBNQVkNCj4+IGNob29zZSB0byB1c2UgQUNLIG1lc3NhZ2VzLi4uIiB0 aGFuIGxhdGVyICJXaGVuIGEgcmVjZWl2aW5nIHBlZXIgaGFzDQo+PiBzdWNjZXNzZnVsbHkgY2hl Y2tlZCAuLi4gaXQgTVVTVCBzZW5kIGFuIEFDSyBtZXNzYWdlLi4uIi4NCj4NCj4gV2lsbCBiZSBj b3JyZWN0ZWQuDQo+DQo+DQo+PiA9PSBUb3Agb2YgUGFnZSAxNywgU2VjdGlvbiA0LjQgPT0NCj4+ DQo+PiAgICAiV2hlbiBhIHJhbmdlIHRyYW5zbGF0ZXMgdG8gbXVsdGlwbGUgYmlucywgdGhlIGJ5 dGUtcmFuZ2UgcGVlciB0aGUNCj4+IGJ5dGUtcmFuZ2UgcGVlciBzaG91bGQgc2VuZCBtdWx0aXBs ZSBlLmcuIEhBVkUgbWVzc2FnZS4iDQo+Pg0KPj4gVGhpcyBzZW50ZW5jZSBsb29rcyBhIGJpdCBn YXJibGVkLCBhdCB0aGUgdmVyeSBsZWFzdCAidGhlIGJ5dGUtcmFuZ2UNCj4+IHBlZXIiIGlzIHJl cGVhdGVkIHR3aWNlLg0KPj4NCj4NCj4gV2lsbCBiZSBjb3JyZWN0ZWQuDQo+DQo+DQo+PiA9PSBQ YWdlIDIwLCBTZWN0aW9uIDUuMyA9PQ0KPj4NCj4+ICAgICJUaGUgaGFzaGVzIG5lY2Vzc2FyeSB0 byB2ZXJpZnkgYSBjaHVuayBhcmUgaW4gcHJpbmNpcGxlIGl0cw0KPj4gc2libGluZydzIGhhc2gg YW5kIGFsbCBpdHMgdW5jbGUgaGFzaGVzIC4uLiBjYW4gYmUgb3B0aW1pemVkICINCj4+DQo+PiBJ ZiBJIHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgY29ycmVjdGx5LCB0aGlzIG9wdGltaXphdGlvbiByZXF1aXJlcyB0aGF0 IGEgcGVlciBNVVNUDQo+PiBzYXZlIGFuZCBwcmVzZXJ2ZSBhbGwgdGhlIHJlY2VpdmVkIGhhc2hl cy4NCj4NCj4gWWVzLiBUaGUgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnQgdGhhdCBhIHNlbmRlciBtdXN0IGJlIGFibGUg dG8gcHJvdmlkZSB0aGVzZSAgDQo+IGhhc2hlcyBpbXBsaWVzIHRoYXQgeW91IHNob3VsZCByZWNv cmQgdGhlbS4gSSdsbCBleHBsaWNpdGx5IGFkZCB0aGUgIA0KPiBjb25jbHVzaW9uIHRoYXQgdGhp cyBtZWFucyB5b3UgTVVTVCByZWNvcmQgdGhlbSwgKmlmKiB5b3UgcGxhbiB0byAgDQo+IGFubm91 bmNlIHlvdSBoYXZlIHRoZW0gdG8gb3RoZXJzLg0KPg0KPiBJbiBvdGhlciB3b3JkcywgbGltaXRl ZCBkZXZpY2VzIGNhbiBjaXJjdW1lbnQgdGhpcyByZXF1aXJlbWVudCBieSAgDQo+IG5vdCBzZW5k aW5nIEhBVkVzIHRvIG90aGVycyBhZnRlciB0aGV5IHJlY2VpdmVkIGEgY2h1bmsuIEhlbmNlIHRo ZXkgIA0KPiBhcmUgbm90IGFubm91bmNpbmcgdGhlIGF2YWlsYWJpbGl0eSBhbmQgYXJlIG5vdCBy ZXF1aXJlZCB0byBwcm92aWRlICANCj4gdGhlbS4gTm90IHNlbmRpbmcgSEFWRXMgaXMgYWxsb3dl ZCBieSB0aGUgcHJvdG9jb2wuIE5vdGUsIGhvd2V2ZXIsICANCj4gdGhhdCB0aGlzIGRvZXMgcmVx dWlyZSB0aGF0IHRoZSBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbiB1c2VzIGEgcmVjaXByb2NpdHkgIA0KPiBwb2xp Y3kgdGhhdCBhbGxvd3MgdGhpcyBiZWhhdmlvdXIsIGFzIHRoZSBsaW1pdGVkIGRldmljZXMgYXJl ICANCj4gYWN0dWFsbHkgZnJlZXJpZGluZy4NCj4NCj4NCj4+ID09IFBhZ2UgMjksIFNlY3Rpb24g OC4yLiAiVmVyc2lvbiBvcHRpb24iID09DQo+Pg0KPj4gTWF5YmUgdGhpcyBpcyB0aGlua2luZyBh IGJpdCBpbiBhZHZhbmNlLCBidXQgd2hhdCBzaG91bGQgYSBwZWVyIHNldCBhcw0KPj4gdmVyc2lv biB2YWx1ZSB3aGVuIHRoZSBwZWVyIGlzIGFibGUgdG8gInNwZWFrIiBtb3JlIHRoYW4gb25lIHBy b3RvY29sDQo+PiB2ZXJzaW9uPw0KPg0KPiBEbyB5b3UgaGF2ZSBwb2ludGVycyB0byBwcm90b2Nv bHMgd2hlcmUgdGhpcyBtZWNoYW5pc20gaXMgdXNlZD8gVGhpcyAgDQo+IGNvdWxkIHNhdmUgYSBm ZXcgcm91bmR0cmlwcyBvZiBIQU5EU0hBS0UgbWVzc2FnZXMsIHNvIGdvb2QgZm9yICANCj4gdGlt ZS10aWxsLXBsYXliYWNrIGlmIHRoZXJlIGFyZSBpbmRlZWQgc2V2ZXJhbCBpbmNvbXBhdGlibGUg IA0KPiB2ZXJzaW9ucywgd2hpY2ggSSBob3BlIHRoZXJlIHdpbGwgbm90IGJlIDtvKQ0KDQpbUmlj Y2FyZG9dDQpObyBzcGVjaWZpYyBwcm90b2NvbCBjb21lcyB0byBteSBtaW5kLiAgSSBjaGVja2Vk IHRoZSBSRkMgNjcwOSAiRGVzaWduICANCkNvbnNpZGVyYXRpb25zIGZvciBQcm90b2NvbCBFeHRl bnNpb25zIiAgDQooaHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2h0bWwvcmZjNjcwOSkgZm9yIGhpbnRz LiAgSW4gU2VjdGlvbiA0LjEgdGhlcmUgIA0KaXMgYSBsaXN0IG9mIHBvc3NpYmxlIHNvbHV0aW9u cyBmb3IgcHJvdG9jb2wgdmVyc2lvbmluZy4gIFNob3VsZCBJICANCnByb3Bvc2UgYSBzb2x1dGlv biBoZXJlICJvbiB0aGUgc3BvdCwiIEkgd291bGQgc3VnZ2VzdCwgaW5zcGlyZWQgYnkgIA0KdGhl IFJGQywgdG8gbWFrZSB0aGUgcGF5bG9hZCBvZiB0aGUgdmVyc2lvbiBvcHRpb24gYSBzdHJpbmcg b2YgYnl0ZXMsICANCm9uZSBmb3IgZXZlcnkgc3VwcG9ydGVkIHZlcnNpb24uDQpTdXBwb3NlIG5v ZGUgQSBpbml0aWF0ZXMgdGhlIGNvbm5lY3Rpb24gdG93YXJkIG5vZGUgQi4gTm9kZSBBIHB1dHMg aW4gIA0KdGhlIG9wdGlvbiBhbGwgdGhlIHZlcnNpb24gaXQgc3VwcG9ydHMsIEIgcGlja3MgYSBz dXBwb3J0ZWQgdmVyc2lvbiAgDQoobWF5YmUgdGhlIGxhcmdlc3Qgb25lP1tzdXBwb3NpbmcgdGhh dCBsYXRlciB2ZXJzaW9ucyBhcmUgYmV0dGVyXSkgYW5kICANCnNlbmRzIGJhY2sgdGhlIEhBTkRT SEFLRSB3aXRoIGEgc2luZ2xlIHZhbHVlIGluIHRoZSBvcHRpb24gZmllbGQuDQpBbiBhbHRlcm5h dGl2ZSBzb2x1dGlvbiwgd2hlcmUgdGhlIG9wdGlvbiBwYXlsb2FkIGhhcyBhIGZpeGVkIGxlbmd0 aCwgIA0KY291bGQgYmUgdGhhdCBBIHB1dHMgdGhlIG51bWJlcnMgb2YgdGhlIG9sZGVzdCBhbmQg dGhlIG5ld2VzdCAgDQpzdXBwb3J0ZWQgdmVyc2lvbiBhbmQgQiBwaWNrcyBvbmUgdmVyc2lvbiBp biB0aGF0IGludGVydmFsLg0KDQo+DQo+DQo+PiA9PSBQYWdlIDM0LCBTZWN0aW9uIDkuMy4gQ2hh bm5lbHMgPT0NCj4+DQo+PiBJdCBpcyBzYWlkIHRoYXQNCj4+DQo+PiAgICAiLi4uIFBQU1BQLW92 ZXItVURQIHVzZXMgYSBtdWx0aXBsZXhpbmcgc2NoZW1lLCBjYWxsZWQgImNoYW5uZWxzIi4uLiIN Cj4+DQo+PiBMYXRlciBpdCBpcyBzYWlkIHRoYXQNCj4+DQo+PiAgICAiV2hlbiBjaGFubmVscyBh cmUgdXNlZC4uLiINCj4+DQo+PiBNeSBkb3VidCBpczogaXMgdGhlIHVzZSBvZiBjaGFubmVscyBt YW5kYXRvcnkgd2l0aCBVRFA/ICBJZiB5ZXMsIHRoZQ0KPj4gaHlwb3RoZXNpcyAid2hlbiBjaGFu bmVscyBhcmUgdXNlZC4uLiIgaXMgcmVkdW5kYW50Ow0KPg0KPiBZZXMgaXQgaXMgbWFuZGF0b3J5 LiBQYXJkb24gbWUgaWYgSSdtIHdyb25nLCBidXQgeW91ciBwb2ludCBtYXkganVzdCAgDQo+IGJl IGdyYW1tYXRpY2FsLCAiV2hlbiBYIiBpbiBFbmdsaXNoIGltcGxpZXMgdGhhdCBYIHdpbGwgYmUg dGhlIGNhc2UgIA0KPiBhdCBzb21lIHBvaW50LiBTbyB5b3Ugc2F5ICJXaGVuIEkgZGllIiBub3Qg IklmIEkgZGllIiwgYnV0IEknbSBub3QgYSAgDQo+IG5hdGl2ZSBzcGVha2VyIG15c2VsZi4gSSds bCBtYWtlIGl0IGNsZWFyZXIuDQoNCltSaWNjYXJkb10NCkkgYW0gbm90IGEgbmF0aXZlIHNwZWFr ZXIsIGVpdGhlci4gTWF5YmUgc29tZSBuYXRpdmUgRW5nbGlzaCBzcGVha2VyICANCmNvdWxkIGhl bHAgdXMgaGVyZS4NCg0KPg0KPg0KPj4gPT0gUGFnZSA0MiwgU2VjdGlvbiAxMy4yLjIuID09DQo+ Pg0KPj4gVGhpcyBzZWN0aW9uIGlzIGFib3V0IHVzaW5nIHRoZSB0cmFja2VyIGFzIGNlcnRpZmlj YXRpb24gYXV0aG9yaXR5Lg0KPj4gSXQgaXMgc2FpZA0KPj4NCj4+ICAgICJVcG9uIHJlY2VpcHQs IHRoZSB0cmFja2VyIGNyZWF0ZXMgYSBtZW1iZXJzaGlwIGNlcnRpZmljYXRlIGZyb20NCj4+IHRo ZSByZXF1ZXN0IHdpdGggc3dhcm0gSUQgUywgYSB0aW1lc3RhbXAgVCBhbmQgdGhlIGV4dGVybmFs IElQIGFuZA0KPj4gcG9ydCBpdCByZWNlaXZlZCB0aGUgbWVzc2FnZSBmcm9tLi4uIg0KPj4NCj4+ IEFtIEkgd3JvbmcsIG9yIHRoaXMgc2NoZW1lIGNvdWxkIGZhaWwgaWYgdGhlIHBlZXIgaXMgYmVo aW5kIGENCj4+IHN5bW1ldHJpYyBOQVQ/ICBXb3VsZCBpdCBiZSB3b3J0aCB0byBhZGQgYXQgbGVh c3QgYSBub3RlIGFib3V0IHRoaXM/DQo+Pg0KPg0KPiBZb3UgYXJlIHJpZ2h0LCBidXQgdGhhdCBw cm9ibGVtIGFwcGxpZXMgZm9yIGFueSB0cmFja2VyIHJlZ2lzdHJhdGlvbi4NCj4gSSdsbCBhZGQg YSBub3RlLg0KPg0KPiBDVSwNCj4gICAgIEFybm8NCg0KUmljY2FyZG8NCg0KPiBfX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KPiBwcHNwIG1haWxpbmcgbGlz dA0KPiBwcHNwQGlldGYub3JnDQo+IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGlu Zm8vcHBzcA0KPg0KDQoNCg0KLS0gDQpSaWNjYXJkbyBCZXJuYXJkaW5pDQpESUVHTSAtLSBVbml2 ZXJzaXR5IG9mIFVkaW5lDQp2aWEgZGVsbGUgU2NpZW56ZSAyMDgNCjMzMTAwIFVkaW5lDQpUZWw6 ICszOS0wNDMyLTU1LTgyNzENCkZheDogKzM5LTA0MzItNTUtODI1MQ0KDQotLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t DQpTRU1FTCAoU0Vydml6aW8gZGkgTWVzc2FnaW5nIEVMZXR0cm9uaWNvKSAtIEFJTkYsIFVuaXZl cnNpdGEnIGRpIFVkaW5lDQoNCg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX18NCnBwc3AgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQpwcHNwQGlldGYub3JnDQpodHRwczovL3d3 dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3Bwc3A= ------=_001_NextPart441141557735_=---- Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Arno,
    Pls see inline.
 
 
BR
Yunfei
 
zhangyunfei
 
Date: 2012-11-24 01:13
To: arno
CC: ppsp
Subject: Re: [ppsp] peer protocol in WG last=20 call
Hi Arno,
please see inline.
 
Arno Bakker <arno@cs.vu.nl> ha scritto:
 
> Hi Riccardo
>
> thanks for the in-depth review! Pl= ease see inline.
>
> On 19/11/2012 11:45, Riccardo Bernardin= i wrote:
>>
>> First, the easy stuff.  Some&n= bsp;typos:
>>
>
> Will be corrected.
>
>
>> Now to the "consistent" stuff:
>>
>> =3D=3D Page 9, Section 2.3 =3D= =3D
>>     "If A crashes un= gracefully, peers should remove A from their=  peer
>> list when they detect it no&nb= sp;longer send messages."
>>
>> How much is "too much"?  = Should we leave the peer free
>> to decide or should we give&nb= sp;at least some guidelines?
>>
>
> Your proposal makes sense, I'm jus= t not sure what is customary in RFCs.
> Should this go in this draft = or in the planned usage guide?
> Chairs?
>
[Yunfei] Personally I would suggest to have = a number=20 explicited in this draft (in a minimum accordance with the=20 requirements) to make sure the system works OK and in the usage guide= , a=20 recommended number is given.
 
 
 
>> Also, there is the problem tha= t when A crashes it remains registered
>> with the tracker, although maybe&nb= sp;this is not a problem directly
>> related with PPSPP.
>>
>
> This is addressed in the current&n= bsp;base tracker proposal. A peer needs &nbs= p;
> to periodically refresh its registratio= n to stay tracked.
>
>
>> =3D=3D Page 10, Section 3 =3D= =3D
>>
>>    It is said that "= absence of any response indicates and error"=  and
>> that "Invalid messages are discarde= d, and further communication with
>> the peer SHOULD be stopped."
>>
>> Isn't this criterion a bit too=  strong?  If a request is lost (e.= g.,
>> because of congestion), the sender&= nbsp;will interpret the absence of
>> response as an error or a = ;bad peer.  Also, how long should a&nbs= p;peer wait
>> for declaring absence of response?&= nbsp; Should we give guidelines?
>>
>
> We could give guidelines, but agai= n, I'm not sure that is customary. &nbs= p;
> I assume implementers apply common = ;sense and, for example, not  
> declare a peer dead after 1 p= acket loss over an unreliable  
> transport. Invalid messages mean that&n= bsp;there is really something  
> wrong and that sender and receiver=  don't understand eachother, so  
> then the receiver really should st= op the interaction.
>
>
>> =3D=3D Page 12, Section 3.9. = =3D=3D
>>
>> It is said "The CHOKE and = ;UNCHOKE messages are informational as a pee= r
>> is not required to respond to&= nbsp;REQUESTs."  However, if I understand
>> correctly, if a peer does not&= nbsp;respond to REQUESTs, the peer will be
>> banned, according to the criterion&= nbsp;in Section 3.  Am I missing
>> something?
>>
>
> No, I don't think you are mis= sing something. The idea is that a peer=   
> P requesting chunks from peer Q&nb= sp;will look for another peer R when Q&= nbsp; 
> doesn't send chunks, and Q didn't&= nbsp;send a CHOKE to announce the fact =  
> it wouldn't be responding. P shoul= d take into account packet loss  
> and swarm size (if there is j= ust 1 other peer in the swarm, don't&nb= sp; 
> disconnect), of course. If P is&nb= sp;not getting chunks from Q it moves o= n.
>
>
>> =3D=3D Page 13, Section 3.10.2 = ;=3D=3D
>>
>> I have a couple of doubts = ;about this
>>
>>    * This supposes that&n= bsp;A can send messages to B.
>>
>>      so this should&= nbsp;not be a problem. Would it be wort= h adding a
>> sentence to emphasize this point?&n= bsp;(e.g. "Note that A can send a
>> message to B since by 3.10.1&n= bsp;A must have exchanged messages with C...= "
>
> Sure.
>
>
>>   * With this model of&nb= sp;hole punching, the peer can only connect<= /DIV>
>> initially to peers with public = ;IP; in particular, the addresses
>> provided by the tracker must b= e public IPs.  Am I right?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>> =3D=3D Page 16, last paragraph = ;of Section 4.3.1 =3D=3D
>>
>>     Implementation note:
>>         To = ;record which chunks ... discussed in detail=  in [BINMAP]
>>
>
> You are right.
>
>
>> =3D=3D Page 16, Section 4.3.2 = =3D=3D
>>
>> Another stylistic detail.  It = is said that "...an implementation MAY
>> choose to use ACK messages..." = ;than later "When a receiving peer has
>> successfully checked ... it MUST&nb= sp;send an ACK message...".
>
> Will be corrected.
>
>
>> =3D=3D Top of Page 17, Section=  4.4 =3D=3D
>>
>>    "When a range translat= es to multiple bins, the byte-range peer&nbs= p;the
>> byte-range peer should send multipl= e e.g. HAVE message."
>>
>> This sentence looks a bit garb= led, at the very least "the byte-range
>> peer" is repeated twice.
>>
>
> Will be corrected.
>
>
>> =3D=3D Page 20, Section 5.3 = =3D=3D
>>
>>    "The hashes necessary = to verify a chunk are in principle its<= /DIV>
>> sibling's hash and all its unc= le hashes ... can be optimized "
>>
>> If I understand correctly, this&nbs= p;optimization requires that a peer MUST
>> save and preserve all the rece= ived hashes.
>
> Yes. The requirement that a sender=  must be able to provide these  
> hashes implies that you should rec= ord them. I'll explicitly add the  
> conclusion that this means you MUS= T record them, *if* you plan to  <= /DIV>
> announce you have them to others.<= /DIV>
>
> In other words, limited devices ca= n circument this requirement by  
> not sending HAVEs to others after&= nbsp;they received a chunk. Hence they  = ;
> are not announcing the availability&nbs= p;and are not required to provide  
> them. Not sending HAVEs is allowed=  by the protocol. Note, however,  
> that this does require that the&nb= sp;implementation uses a reciprocity  
> policy that allows this behaviour, = ;as the limited devices are  
> actually freeriding.
>
>
>> =3D=3D Page 29, Section 8.2. "= Version option" =3D=3D
>>
>> Maybe this is thinking a bit&n= bsp;in advance, but what should a peer = set as
>> version value when the peer is=  able to "speak" more than one protocol=
>> version?
>
> Do you have pointers to protocols&= nbsp;where this mechanism is used? This &nbs= p;
> could save a few roundtrips of&nbs= p;HANDSHAKE messages, so good for  
> time-till-playback if there are indeed&= nbsp;several incompatible  
> versions, which I hope there will&= nbsp;not be ;o)
 
[Riccardo]
No specific protocol comes to my mind.&= nbsp; I checked the RFC 6709 "Design &n= bsp;
Considerations for Protocol Extensions"  
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6709) for hints.  = In Section 4.1 there  
is a list of possible solutions for&nbs= p;protocol versioning.  Should I  
propose a solution here "on the spot,"&= nbsp;I would suggest, inspired by  
the RFC, to make the payload of th= e version option a string of bytes, &nb= sp;
one for every supported version.
Suppose node A initiates the connection = ;toward node B. Node A puts in  
the option all the version it supports,=  B picks a supported version  
(maybe the largest one?[supposing that later=  versions are better]) and  
sends back the HANDSHAKE with a single&= nbsp;value in the option field.
An alternative solution, where the option&nb= sp;payload has a fixed length,  
could be that A puts the numbers o= f the oldest and the newest  
supported version and B picks one versi= on in that interval.
 
>
>
>> =3D=3D Page 34, Section 9.3. C= hannels =3D=3D
>>
>> It is said that
>>
>>    "... PPSPP-over-UDP uses&nb= sp;a multiplexing scheme, called "channels"..."
>>
>> Later it is said that
>>
>>    "When channels are use= d..."
>>
>> My doubt is: is the use o= f channels mandatory with UDP?  If yes,=  the
>> hypothesis "when channels are used.= .." is redundant;
>
> Yes it is mandatory. Pardon me&nbs= p;if I'm wrong, but your point may just=   
> be grammatical, "When X" in Englis= h implies that X will be the case =  
> at some point. So you say "Wh= en I die" not "If I die", but I'm&= nbsp;not a  
> native speaker myself. I'll make i= t clearer.
 
[Riccardo]
I am not a native speaker, either. = ;Maybe some native English speaker  
could help us here.
 
>
>
>> =3D=3D Page 42, Section 13.2.2.&nbs= p;=3D=3D
>>
>> This section is about using th= e tracker as certification authority.
>> It is said
>>
>>    "Upon receipt, the tra= cker creates a membership certificate from
>> the request with swarm ID S,&n= bsp;a timestamp T and the external IP a= nd
>> port it received the message f= rom..."
>>
>> Am I wrong, or this scheme&nbs= p;could fail if the peer is behind a
>> symmetric NAT?  Would it be&nb= sp;worth to add at least a note about&n= bsp;this?
>>
>
> You are right, but that problem&nb= sp;applies for any tracker registration.
> I'll add a note.
>
> CU,
>     Arno
 
Riccardo
 
> _______________________________________________
> ppsp mailing list
> ppsp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp
>
 
 
 
-- 
Riccardo Bernardini
DIEGM -- University of Udine
via delle Scienze 208
33100 Udine
Tel: +39-0432-55-8271
Fax: +39-0432-55-8251
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------= -
SEMEL (SErvizio di Messaging ELettronico) -&= nbsp;AINF, Universita' di Udine
 
 
_______________________________________________
ppsp mailing list
ppsp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp
------=_001_NextPart441141557735_=------

*<[:{)
ho ho ho

Regards,

Rui = Cruz
<= font class=3D"Apple-style-span" = color=3D"#1555cb">
IST/INESC-ID/INOV - Lisbon, = Portugal
__________________________________________
<= div>ppsp mailing = list