[JDEV] File transfers

[Max Metral]

How exactly do you convert *data* ("inband data") to a *protocol* (HTTP)???
Do you mean "fetch" or "convert"?

-----Original Message-----
From: Tijl Houtbeckers [mailto:tijl at druppel.nl]
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 8:23 PM
To: jdev at jabber.org
Subject: Re[2]: [JDEV] File transfers



---------- Original Message ----------

>Given a certain set of assumptions which make up our model, I'll agree that
>the bandwidth _flows_ are different, in direction and duration but not in
>magnitude. I do not think, however, that cost should be different.
>
>The assumptions are:
>
>(1) Each ISP deploys its own Jabber server
>(2) ISPs incur no per-megabyte charge to transfer data between nodes
>directly connected to it
>(3) The one-time hardware/engineering cost for the ISP's NOC to internally
>handle a larger amount of data, but over a longer time, is acceptable.
>
> [rest of the well written cost considerations]

I was about to point this about myself (was behind on the list a bit after
this manny 
mails about the subject) but I'm glad you did before me since I don't think
it could be 
said any clearer then this. I hope this puts to rest the people saying that
p2p is 
*always* better then inband data.

Further more I'd like to point out that jabber is not just meant as some
kind of instant 
message server pushing back and forth messages no longer then a few
sentences. If 
that is the case then why for example are we sending GPG encrypted messages 
(they tend to be somewhat bigger as normal messages) through the server if
we can 
save bandwidth for the jabberserver and do that p2p?

This doesn't mean I say we should send 600MB AVI files inband through
jabber, but 
there are other cases besides the firewall/NAT situation in wich it can be
usefull. 
For example clients that are limited to one socket connection only, or users
in a 
corporate network that are so firewalled in they can only connect to a
(specific) jabber 
server because it is allowed, and do not have acces to any other ports like
80. Or 
clients that want to implement features that require the transfer of small
files (like 
icons or sounds) without wanting to implement HTTP or HTTP server (after all
one 
goal of Jabber is to keep things simple for the client!).

This ofcourse still leaves the need for better p2p signaling. Best would be
ofcourse to 
combine both of them, letting both clients indicate wich options they have
and then 
choosing the best one together. Maybe some discussion on how this signalling
can be 
done best is a good idea rather then argueing about wether inband is good or
bad..

Our ultimate goal would ofcourse be some sort of implementation for this and
a JEP. 
I'd be willing to put some time into writing a simple application for this
at some point, 
that demonstrates  inband & p2p (& p2s2p?) capabilities. I'll be at
Jabberconf Europe 
next week, and quite busy after that for a while, but I'll keep an eye on
the list to see if 
anyone is intrested. Does anyone know if there is already a constructive
discussion 
about this subject going on somewhere other then here? (another list
perhaps?)

If we do get a JEP for this one day and I'll have some free time on my hands
maybe I'll 
write an external component for jabberd that can convert inband data to/from
HTTP 
on the fly :P

_______________________________________________
jdev mailing list
jdev at jabber.org
http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev