ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Ranking factors in peer-to-peer overlay networks
Full text PdfPdf (520 KB)
Source
ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems (TAAS) archive
Volume 2 ,  Issue 3  (September 2007) table of contents
Article No. 11  
Year of Publication: 2007
ISSN:1556-4665
Authors
Kenichi Watanabe  Tokyo Denki University, Hiki, Saitama, Japan
Yoshio Nakajima  Tokyo Denki University, Hiki, Saitama, Japan
Tomoya Enokido  Rissho University, Tokyo, Japan
Makoto Takizawa  Tokyo Denki University, Hiki, Saitama, Japan
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 29,   Downloads (12 Months): 255,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  
Save this Article to a Binder    Display Formats: BibTex  EndNote ACM Ref   
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1278460.1278465
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

A large number of peer processes are distributed in a peer-to-peer (P2P) overlay network. It is difficult, maybe impossible for a peer to perceive the membership and location of every resource object due to the scalability and openness of a P2P network. In this article, we discuss a fully distributed P2P system where there is no centralized controller. Each peer has to obtain service information from its acquaintance peers and also send its service information to the acquaintance peers. An acquaintance peer of a peer p is a peer about whose service the peer p knows and with which the peer p can directly communicate in an overlay network. Some acquaintance peer might hold obsolete service information and might be faulty. Each peer has to find a more trustworthy one among acquaintance peers. There are many discussions on how to detect peers that hold a target object. However, a peer cannot manipulate an object without being granted access rights (permissions). In addition to detecting what peers hold a target object, we have to find peers granted access rights to manipulate the target object. The trustworthiness of each acquaintance is defined in terms of the satisfiability and ranking factor in this article. The satisfiability of an acquaintance peer shows how much each peer can trust the acquaintance peer through direct communication to not only detect target objects but also obtain their access rights. On the other hand, the ranking factor of an acquaintance peer indicates how much the acquaintance peer is trusted only by trustworthy acquaintance peers which is different from the traditional reputation concept. We evaluate how the trustworthiness of an acquaintance peer is changed through interactions among peers in a detection algorithm.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

1
 
2
 
3
 
4
Cuenca-Acuna, F. M., Martin, R. P., and Nguyen, T. D. 2002. PlanetP: Using gossiping and random replication to support reliable peer-to-peer content search and retrieval. Tech. Rep. DCS-TR-494, Rutgers University.
 
5
 
6
7
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
Napster. http://www.napster.com.
 
12
OMG Inc. 1997. The Common Object Request Broker: Architecture and Specification. QED Publishing Co.
 
13
Oracle Corporation 1999. Oracle8i Concepts Vol. 1.
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
Sybase SQL Server. Sybase sql server. http://www.sybase.com/.
 
19
 
20
Watanabe, K., Enokido, T., and Takizawa, M. 2006. Trustworthiness of acquaintances in peer-to-peer overlay networks. Inter. J. High Perform. Comput. Netw. (IJHPCN). To appear.
 
21
 
22
Watanabe, K., Hayashibara, N., Enokido, T., and Takizawa, M. 2005b. CBF: Look-up protocol for distributed multimedia objects in peer-to-peer overlay networks. J. Intercon. Netw. 6, 3, 323--344.
 
23
Watanabe, K. and Takizawa, M. 2006. Service oriented cooperation among trustworthy peers. J. Intercon. Netw. 1, 4, 507--533.
 
24

Collaborative Colleagues:
Kenichi Watanabe: colleagues
Yoshio Nakajima: colleagues
Tomoya Enokido: colleagues
Makoto Takizawa: colleagues