[Gzz-commits] gzz/Documentation/misc/hemppah-progradu mastert...

[Hermanni Hyytiälä]

CVSROOT:        /cvsroot/gzz
Module name:    gzz
Changes by:     Hermanni Hyytiälä <address@hidden>      03/03/21 09:57:40

Modified files:
        Documentation/misc/hemppah-progradu: masterthesis.tex 

Log message:
        More and more and more

CVSWeb URLs:
http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/gzz/gzz/Documentation/misc/hemppah-progradu/masterthesis.tex.diff?tr1=1.170&tr2=1.171&r1=text&r2=text

Patches:
Index: gzz/Documentation/misc/hemppah-progradu/masterthesis.tex
diff -u gzz/Documentation/misc/hemppah-progradu/masterthesis.tex:1.170 
gzz/Documentation/misc/hemppah-progradu/masterthesis.tex:1.171
--- gzz/Documentation/misc/hemppah-progradu/masterthesis.tex:1.170      Fri Mar 
21 09:48:14 2003
+++ gzz/Documentation/misc/hemppah-progradu/masterthesis.tex    Fri Mar 21 
09:57:40 2003
@@ -475,8 +475,8 @@
 However, in all above schemes each hop in the overlay shortens the distance 
between 
 current peer working with the data lookup and the key which was looked up in 
the identifier space. 
 
-Skip Graphs \cite{AspnesS2003} and SWAN \cite{bonsma02swan} employ a key space 
very similar to a tightly structured
-overlay, but in which queries are routed  to \emph{keys}. In these systems
+Skip Graphs \cite{AspnesS2003} and SWAN \cite{bonsma02swan} employ a 
identifier space  
+in which queries are routed to \emph{keys}. In these systems
 a peer occupies several positions in the identifier space, one for each 
 application-specific key. The indirection of placing close keys in the 
 custody of a provider peer is removed at the cost of each peer maintaining one 
@@ -484,12 +484,12 @@
 which has initially published services into the overlay.
 
 PeerNet \cite{eriksson03peernet} differs from other tightly structured 
overlays in that it operates
-at the \emph{network} layer. PeerNet makes an explicit distinction 
+at the \emph{network} layer instead of application layer. This property would 
provide a common interface
+to all Peer-to-Peer systems using PeerNet. PeerNet makes an explicit 
distinction 
 between peer identity and address, which is not supported by standard
-TCP/IP-protocols. Otherwise, PeerNet has the same performance properties
-as other tightly structured overlays, i.e., $O(\log{n})$ space required
-for maintaining information about other peers in the system and 
-$O(\log{n})$ data lookup efficiency.
+TCP/IP-protocols. PeerNet has the same performance properties as other tightly 
structured 
+overlays, i.e., $O(\log{n})$ space required for maintaining information about 
other peers in 
+the system and $O(\log{n})$ data lookup efficiency.
 
 
 \section{Summary}