The present invention provides a method for optimally utilizing peer to peer networks, and, in particular, to optimally utilize peer to peer networks to increase the amount of communications messages received.
As used herein, peer to peer networks which are the subject of the present invention comprise multiple nodes, each node typically consisting both of file server and client which can send and receive communication messages or information to or from a node to which such is connected.
In a peer to peer network each node is connected to other nodes over a communication medium such as the internet either directly or through some type of proxy. For example, when a search request is issued such originating node sends a search request to all of the nodes to which it is connected (see
Some peer to peer networks utilize a leaf node/main node proxy topology (See
Accordingly it is an object of the present invention to provide a method for optimally utilizing a peer to peer network. It is yet another object of the invention to provide a method for reducing the number of connections required from a single node on a peer to peer network to view most, if not all, communication messages. It is yet another object of the invention to provide a method for optimally connecting to the network. It is yet another object of the invention to provide a method for locating nodes specific distances away from a first node.
Generally, the present invention provides a method for optimally utilizing a peer to peer network by controlling how a node connects into the network and by controlling how a node locates optimal nodes as well as by how the node interacts with the network and other nodes.
In one embodiment a first node issues a search for preselected information to help locate other nodes by watching responses. In another embodiment a first node issues a ping and compares the hops value to a predefined optimal value. In yet another embodiment a first node maintains connection statistics and compares these to a configured optimal value. In yet another embodiment a first node continuously clears its host cache at predetermined times.
In all of the embodiments, a node is configured to have one or more of the features set forth below. These features are employed in the invention to optimally utilize a peer to peer network as compared to the other network nodes on the particular network being addressed not so optimized. Thus, not all of the capabilities need to be programmed into each node in order to optimally utilize the network. The presently preferred methods of the present invention include:
configuring a node to send pings and review the distance parameters contained in the results.
configuring a node to send preconfigured searches and review the distance parameters contained in the results.
configuring a node to clear or modify its host cache based on a comparison of its host cache size.
configuring a node to clear or modify its host cache based on comparison of how long its host cache has existed.
configuring a node to throttle its connection attempts.
configuring a node to drop connections based on calculations of duplicate communication messages received.
configuring a node to drop connections based on the last time a transmission was received from a connection.
configuring a node to drop connections based on how well the connection is performing when compared to other connections.
configuring a node to connect to other similar nodes or a master node and share processing of the network.
Other advantages of the present invention will become apparent from a perusal of the following detailed description of presently preferred embodiments of the invention taken in connection with the accompanying drawings.
The foregoing will be apparent from the following more particular description of example embodiments of the invention, as illustrated in the accompanying drawings in which like reference characters refer to the same parts throughout the different views. The drawings are not necessarily to scale, emphasis instead being placed upon illustrating embodiments of the present invention.
A description of example embodiments of the invention follows.
Generally, peer to peer networks are quite large, often a million or more nodes. To reduce the bandwidth required to operate such networks, nodes have a community imposed transmission distance limitation. Most communication messages contain communication radius parameters such as hops. Hops is a value that normally starts at 0 and increments each time the communications is forwarded. When hops reaches a preset limit, often 5, the communications is dropped from the network. This effectively enforces a community “time to live” value and limits the number of nodes that would receive the communications from a particular transmitting node. It therefore would be optimal and advantageous to connect in such a way that a node would be within reach of all communication messages.
In one embodiment of the invention a first node wishing to be optimally connected to a second node issues a search request containing a preconfigured search term. This search term can be any term but preferably one that will match many files on other nodes. As other nodes available through the second node respond to the first node, the first node looks at the hops value of their responses and compares it to a value which value can be preconfigured by the operator. Such value can be generated by a mathematical calculation based on other values, or it can be in relation to other values. If the hop value is equal or greater than the compared value, the first node will attempt to connect to the node sending the response. If the hop value is less than the compared value the first node will not attempt to connect to the node sending the response. This method allows the first node to connect to node that are N hops away from currently connected nodes and expands its communications radius.
In another embodiment, the first node connects to a second node and issues a ping rather than a second request. As other nodes available through the second node respond to the first node, the first node looks at the hops value of their responses and compares it to a value which can be preconfigured by the operator. Such value can be generated by a mathematical calculation based on other values, or it can be in relation to other values as in the first embodiment. If the hop value is more or greater than the compared value, the first node will attempt to connect to the node sending the response. If the hop value is less than the compared value the first node will not attempt to connect to the node sending the response. This method allows the first node to connect to node that are N hops away from currently connected nodes and expands its communications radius.
In another embodiment a first node seeking to locate other nodes on the network for connection purposes issues a search request containing a preconfigured search term. This search term can be any term but preferably one that will match many files on other nodes. As other nodes available through the second node respond to the first node, the first node attempts to connect to them or adds them to a cache to be connected to later.
Referring to
It is possible for a first node to connect to a second node which is not connected to any other nodes or the second node may be configured to not forward any communications. In this situation the second node would be deemed unproductive. Thus, in another embodiment of the invention, the first node maintains a count of received communications messages for its connections. At intervals the first node will use the amount of received communication messages in a preconfigured equation such as a comparison to a value. This value can be preconfigured by the operator, it can be a value generated by a mathematical calculation based on other values or it can be in relation to other values. The comparison can be any comparison, for instance greater or less than or an average of. If using the equation, the node detects the connection is not optimal or meeting a certain criteria the first node will disconnect that connection.
In another embodiment the first node maintains a count of searches it has received from each connection. At intervals the first node will use these counts in a preconfigured equation such as a comparison to a value. This value can be preconfigured by the operator, it can be a value generated by a mathematical calculation based on other values or it can be in relation to other values. The comparison can be any comparison, for instance greater or less than or an average of. If using the equation, the node detects the connection is not optimal or meeting a certain criteria the first node will disconnect that connection.
In another embodiment the first node maintains the last time the node received a communication message on a specific connection. At intervals the first node will use the last transmission time in a preconfigured equation such as a comparison to a value, which value can be preconfigured by the operator, generated by a mathematical calculation based on other values or it can be in relation to other values. The comparison can be any comparison, for example greater or less than or an average of. If using the equation, the node detects the connection is not optimal or meeting a certain criteria the first node will disconnect that connection.
In some situations it may be preferable to drop connections that are not performing as well as the average of other connections or connections that are not performing within a certain percentage of the average of other connections or against a predefined performance range. Thus, in such a case, in another embodiment, the first node would keep specific communications statistics on its connections and at intervals calculate the average of these statistics and drop those connections that are below average or drop those connections that are below some percentage of the average.
Sometimes a node can get overloaded processing communications on peer to peer networks. In this situation it would be advantageous to be able to split the load of processing communications. Accordingly, in another embodiment of the invention, multiple nodes can connect to the network at different points and share the load. These multiple nodes would maintain communications paths between themselves or to a master node and transmit and receive information about what other network nodes and where each node is connected. This would allow multiple nodes to share the load. These nodes may also report back to a master node with the searches they are processing.
When connecting many times to a network, a load is placed on the resources of the node in relation to the number of connection attempts are occurring at one time. It would be a benefit to the node if it had some way to control or throttle multiple connection attempts to the network. In this embodiment of the invention, the node is configured for a set number of concurrent connection attempts. As connections are accepted, the node will add new connection attempts to maintain this set value. Without this method, a node wishing to connect to 1,000 other nodes would attempt 1,000 concurrent connections. With the method, and configured for a maximum number of 50 concurrent connections, the node would attempt 50 concurrent connection attempts to the network. As these connection attempts succeeded or failed the node would add enough new connection attempts to reach the set limit of 50. Once the limit of 1,000 connections are established the node would not attempt any further connections.
Although limiting and controlling the concurrent number of connection attempts by the node reduces load, it is sometimes desired to initially start with a large number of concurrent connection attempts and then limit the number to a set value. In another embodiment the node is configured to attempt only a set number of concurrent connection attempts. When the connection attempts first start, the node attempts as many connections as possible until the number of successful connections reaches some value. This value can be preconfigured by the operator, generated by a mathematical calculation based on other values, or it can be in relation to other values. Once this value is reached the node will reduce its attempts to the limited concurrent connection method described above.
In many cases, a first node may connect to a second node and after some time the second node may stop transmitting without the first node knowing of such occurrence. This second node may stop transmitting because of technical problems or it may stop transmitting because it is no longer being utilized. It would be a benefit to the first node to drop the connection just as a precaution after some time has past. In one embodiment the first node is configured to keep track of when it connected to a second node. After some configured or calculated time limit is reached, the first node drops the connection and attempts to connect to either the same node again or to a different node.
As nodes connect to the network they are constantly receiving address information about other nodes to which it can be potentially connected. As these new nodes are discovered they are added to a cache. This cache is used to provide the node with potential new connections. Some nodes have a set limit on the number concurrent connections they can have. Should their set limit be reached they will not connect to any further nodes but they will continue to add any newly discovered nodes to their cache. Should a node maintain very long connections, nodes in this cache may become invalid for various reasons. When the node finally looses connections and attempts to connect to nodes in the cache, resources are consumed and wasted because the nodes are invalid. Thus, in yet another embodiment, the node is configured to add nodes to its cache as normal but also configured to clear this cache at set intervals or when the cache reaches a certain limit. By constantly clearing the cache a reduction in invalid nodes is achieved.
The following Examples illustrate various embodiments of the methods according to the present Invention.
Referring to
In this example node A is connected to node B and wishes to optimally connect into the rest of the network. The network is configured to allow communication messages to travel a maximum of 5 hops so node A is configured to look for nodes 5 hops away. Each node contains a file called “Samuel.txt.” Node A sends out a search message to the network via node B with the term “Samuel.txt.” Nodes A, B, C, D, E and F all respond. Node A reviews each search response and finds that node F is 5 hops away. Node A connects to node F. Node A sends out a search message to the network via node F with the term “Samuel.txt.” Nodes B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and R respond. Node A reviews each search response and finds that nodes B and R are 5 hops away. Node A knows that it is already connected to node B so it connects only to node R. Node A sends out a search message to the network via node R with the term “Samuel.txt.” Nodes F, G, H, I, R, Q, P, 0 and N respond. Node A reviews each search response and finds that nodes F and N are 5 hops away. Node A knows that it is already connected to node F so it connects only to node N. Node A sends out a search message to the network via node N with the term “Samuel.txt.” Nodes J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, and R respond. Node A reviews each search response and finds that nodes J and R are 5 hops away. Node A knows that it is already connected to node R so it connects only to node J. Node A sends out a search message to the network via node J with the term “Samuel.txt.” Nodes J, K, L, M, and N respond. Node A reviews each search response and finds that node N is 5 hops away. Node A knows that it is already connected to node N so it does not connect. Node A is now within 5 hops of all nodes and will receive all communications from all nodes.
Referring again to
In this example, node A is connected into node B and wishes to optimally connect into the rest of the network. The network is configured to allow communication messages to travel a maximum of 5 hops so node A is configured to look for nodes 5 hops away. Node A sends out a ping message to the network via node B. Nodes A, B, C, D, E and F all respond. Node A reviews each response and finds that node F is 5 hops away. Node A connects to node F. Node A sends out a ping to the network via node F. Nodes B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and R respond. Node A reviews each response and finds that nodes B and R are 5 hops away. Node A knows that it is already connected to node B so it connects only to node R. Node A sends out a ping message to the network via node R. Nodes F, G, H, I, R, Q, P, 0 and N respond. Node A reviews each response and finds that nodes F and N are 5 hops away. Node A knows that it is already connected to node F so it connects only to node N. Node A sends out a ping message to the network via node N. Nodes J, K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, and R respond. Node A reviews each response and finds that nodes J and R are 5 hops away. Node A knows that it is already connected to node R so it connects only to node J. Node A sends out a ping message to the network via node J. Nodes J, K, L, M, and N respond. Node A reviews each response and finds that node N is 5 hops away. Node A knows that it is already connected to node N so it does not connect. Node A is now within 5 hops of all nodes and will receive all communications from all nodes.
Referring to
In this example Node A wishes to find other nodes to connect to. Node A is already connected to node B. The network is configured to allow communication messages to travel a maximum of 5 hops. Each node contains a file called “Samuel.txt.” Node A sends out a search message to the network via node B with the term “Samuel.txt.” Nodes A, B, C, D, E and F all respond. Node A reviews each search response and uses the address information contain in the message to connect to these nodes.
Referring to
Referring to
Referring to
In this example, main node 4 wishes to optimize its connections by monitoring how many communication messages it is receiving from all connections and comparing them to an average. If a connection does not meet the average it will disconnect the connection. Main node 4 records the following statistics:
Main node 2 has sent 1 communication message
Main node 3 has sent 1 communication message
Leaf node G has sent 1 communication message
Leaf node H has sent 1 communication message
Main node 4 then waits, for example, 5 minutes, and records the following statistics:
Main node 2 has sent 51 communication messages
Main node 3 has sent 53 communication messages
Leaf node G has sent 54 communication messages
Leaf node H has sent 1 communications message
Main node 4 adds the delta of all messages together and divides by 4 to get an average of 38.75. Because main node 4 is configured to drop any connections below the average, it will drop the connection to leaf node H.
Referring again to
In this example, main node 4 is programmed to optimize its connections by monitoring when the last time its connections received a communication message and comparing them to a value. If a connection has not received any communication messages within 1 minute the node will drop the connection. Main node 4 records the following statistics:
Main node 2 has sent 1 communication message
Main node 3 has sent 1 communication message
Leaf node G has sent 1 communication message
Leaf node H has sent 1 communication message
Main node 4 then waits 1 minute and records the following statistics:
Main node 2 has sent 51 communication messages
Main node 3 has sent 53 communication messages
Leaf node G has sent 54 communication messages
Leaf node H has sent 1 communications message
Because main node 4 is configured to drop any connections that have not received any communication messages within 1 minute it will drop the connection to leaf node H.
Referring to
In this example, main node 4 is programmed to optimize its connections by monitoring how many search requests it is receiving from all connections and comparing them to an average. If a connection does not meet the average it will disconnect the connection. Main node 4 records the following statistics:
Main node 2 has sent 1 search request
Main node 3 has sent 1 search request
Leaf node G has sent 1 search request
Leaf node H has sent 1 search request
Main node 4 then waits, 5 minutes and records the following statistics:
Main node 2 has sent 51 search request
Main node 3 has sent 53 search request
Leaf node G has sent 54 search request
Leaf node H has sent 1 search request
Main node 4 adds the delta of all messages together and divides by 4 to get an average of 38.75. Because main node 4 is configured to drop any connections below the average, it will drop the connection to leaf node H.
Referring to
Here, Nodes 1, 7 and 13 are depicted as sharing the load of monitoring a network at optimal points. Node 1 is connected to node 2 and reports this information to master node A. Node 7 is connected to node 8 and reports this information to master node A. Node 13 is connected to node 14 and reports this information to master node A. Node 7 wishes to connect to node 2 and sends this request to master node A. Master node A knows that node 1 is connected to node 2 and denies the request.
Node 2 issues a search request for “samuel.txt.” Node 1 receives this communications message and forwards it to master node A. Master node A records the information. Node 17 issues a search request for “bob.txt.” Node 13 receives this communication message and forwards it to master node A. Master node A records this information.
Referring to
Referring first to
Nodes 1, 7 and 13 connect and are sharing the load of monitoring a network at optimal points. Node 1 is connected to node 2 and reports this information to master node A. Node 7 is connected to node 8 and reports this information to master node a. Node 13 is connected to node 14 and reports this information to master node A. Node 7 wishes to connect to node 2 and sends this request to master node A. Master node A knows that node 1 is connected to node 2 and denies the request.
Node 2 issues a search request for “samuel.txt.” Node 1 receives this communications message and forwards it to master node A. Master node A records the information. Node 17 issues a search request for “bob.txt.” Node 13 receives this communication message and forwards it to master node A. Master node A records this information.
Referring to
In this example node C wishes to connect to a maximum of four other nodes. In its cache it has the following entries:
Node A
Node H
Node L
Node V
Node B
Node O
Node E
Node D
Node C is configured to only have a maximum of 2 concurrent connection attempts and to wait 10 seconds for each connection attempt. Node C attempts to connect to node A and node H. Node C connects to node A and establishes a connection. Node C continues to wait for the connection attempt to node H. Because Node C connected to node A, there is now one empty connection slot so node C attempts to connect to Node V. The connection attempt to node H fails so there is now one empty connection slot. Node C attempts to connect to node B and this connection attempt succeeds. Because once again there is one empty connection slot node C attempts to connect to node O. An error occurs immediately and at the same time the connection attempt to node V fails as well. There are now two empty connection slots available. Node C attempts to connect to node E and node D. Node C's connection attempt with node D is successful. After 10 seconds, the connection attempt to node E fails.
While presently preferred embodiments have been described and depicted, the invention may be otherwise embodied within the scope of the following claims:
While this invention has been particularly shown and described with references to example embodiments thereof, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that various changes in form and details may be made therein without departing from the scope of the invention encompassed by the appended claims.
This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 12/899,053 filed Oct. 6, 2010, which is divisional of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/039,981, filed Jan. 21, 2005, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/764,111, filed Jan. 23, 2004. The entire teachings of the above applications are incorporated herein by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
111604 | Bailey | Feb 1871 | A |
5949760 | Stevens et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5987011 | Toh | Nov 1999 | A |
6069896 | Borgstahl et al. | May 2000 | A |
6076088 | Paik et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6205146 | Rochberger et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6611196 | Mynatt et al. | Aug 2003 | B2 |
6668289 | Cheng et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6732180 | Hale et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6839769 | Needham et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6855660 | Tsou et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6918113 | Patel et al. | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6950821 | Faybishenko et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6965591 | Roy | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6983320 | Thomas et al. | Jan 2006 | B1 |
7003514 | Dutta et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7010534 | Kraft | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7027994 | Verdi et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7035653 | Simon et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7089301 | Labio et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7120145 | Ohba et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7120619 | Drucker et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7174382 | Ramanathan et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7177295 | Sholander et al. | Feb 2007 | B1 |
7206841 | Traversat et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7308445 | Bharat et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7318092 | Sutler | Jan 2008 | B2 |
7327683 | Ogier et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7336623 | Huitema | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7418455 | Fan et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7441180 | Kaczmarek et al. | Oct 2008 | B1 |
7493363 | Huitema et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7533168 | Pabla et al. | May 2009 | B1 |
7574523 | Traversat et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7600033 | Bauer et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7703040 | Cutrell et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7941482 | Bates et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
20010003191 | Kovacs et al. | Jun 2001 | A1 |
20010037325 | Bidernman et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010045949 | Chithambaram et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020016786 | Pitkow et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020044549 | Johansson et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020059204 | Harris | May 2002 | A1 |
20020065832 | Mack | May 2002 | A1 |
20020069098 | Schmidt | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020073204 | Dutta et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020087885 | Peled et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020103893 | Frelechoux et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020129140 | Peled et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020138471 | Dutta et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020143989 | Huitema et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020152262 | Arkin et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020161844 | Overtoom | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020165948 | Vincent | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020181395 | Foster et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020184310 | Traversat et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020188735 | Needham et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030005035 | Rodgers | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030037167 | Garcia-Luna-Aceves et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030050966 | Dutta et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030050980 | Dutta et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030055892 | Huitema et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030078889 | Lee et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030088544 | Kan et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030095660 | Lee et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030112823 | Collins et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030126136 | Omoigui | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030126199 | Kadri et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030135495 | Vagnozzi | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030145093 | Oren et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030182428 | Li et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030191828 | Ramanathan et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030195852 | Campbell et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030202468 | Cain et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030208621 | Bowman | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030212710 | Guy | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20040019650 | Auvenshine | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040030651 | Kim et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040034652 | Hofmann et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040039921 | Chuang | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040044790 | Loach et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040044996 | Atallah | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040098370 | Garland et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040103297 | Risan et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040111604 | Fournier | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040122958 | Wardrop | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040133571 | Horne et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040139211 | Baker et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040143842 | Joshi | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040148275 | Achlioptas | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040148434 | Matsubara et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040153472 | Rieffanaugh | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040153658 | Gunyakti et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040157641 | Chithambaram et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040158630 | Chang et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040196784 | Larsson et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040218532 | Khirman | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040220926 | Lamkin et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040230572 | Omoigui | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040236945 | Risan et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040250106 | Annese et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040250122 | Newton | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040260761 | Leaute et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040260801 | Li | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050028012 | Amamiya et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050038898 | Mittig et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050043548 | Cates | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050060297 | Najork | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050060406 | Zhang et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050080858 | Pessach | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050080883 | Nurminen et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050091167 | Moore et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050091202 | Thomas | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050091397 | Roberts et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050108203 | Tang et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050108248 | Natunen | May 2005 | A1 |
20050114709 | Moore | May 2005 | A1 |
20050119998 | Greco et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050125374 | Curtis et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050125673 | Cheng et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050144288 | Liao | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050163050 | Hopkins | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050163133 | Hopkins | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050163135 | Hopkins | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050187942 | Dutta et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050203851 | King et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050203892 | Wesley et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050229243 | Svendsen et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050229255 | Gula et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050265259 | Thubert et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050267945 | Cohen et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060020814 | Lieblich et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060029093 | Van Rossum | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060034177 | Schrempp | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060039297 | McNab | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060117372 | Hopkins | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060136837 | Ben-Shachar et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060209819 | Jennings et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060248062 | Libes et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070124721 | Cowing et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070162463 | Kester et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20080140780 | Hopkins | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20090024618 | Fan et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
101606143 | Dec 2009 | CN |
1107512 | Jun 2001 | EP |
2082326 | Jul 2009 | EP |
2010-509674 | Mar 2010 | JP |
WO 03009524 | Jan 2003 | WO |
WO 2005074230 | Aug 2005 | WO |
WO2006110823 | Oct 2006 | WO |
WO 2006124027 | Nov 2006 | WO |
WO2008057509 | May 2008 | WO |
WO2008127608 | Oct 2008 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Hessing, Steven, “Peer to Peer Messaging Protocol,” Internet-Draft, Apr. 2002, pp. 1-57. |
Lindemann, C., et al., “A Distributed Search Service for Peer-to-Peer File Sharing in Mobile Applications,” Peer-to-Peer Computing, 2002, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing, Sep. 5-7, 2002. |
Mondal, A., et al., “Effective load-balancing of peer-to-peer systems,” Online, Mar. 2002, XP002299388. |
Oram, A., “Peer-to-Peer: Harnessing the Power of Disruptive Technologies,” Ch.10 Interoperability Through Gateways, Mar. 2001, p. 381-392. |
Shi, W., et al., “Tuxedo: A Peer-to-Peer Caching System,” Department of Computer Science, Wayne University. |
Zhenyun Zhuang, et al. “Hybrid Periodical Flooding in Unstructured Peer-to-Peer Networks,” Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Parallel Proceeding. |
Zhu, et al., “SDQE: Towards Automatic Semantic Query Optimization in P2P Systems,” Information Processing & Management, 42(1), pp. 222-236 Oct. 26, 2004. |
Hwang, J., and Aravamudham, P., “Proxy-Based Middleware Services for Peer-to-Peer Computing in Virtually Clustered Wireless Grid Networks,” School of Information Studies, Syracuse University, CST 4-291. |
United States House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform—Staff Report Prepard for Rep. Tom Davis and Rep. Henry A. Waxman, “File-Sharing Programs and Peer-to-Peer Networks Provacy and Security Risk,” May 13, 2003, pp. 1-12. |
Couch, William, “Peer-To-Peer File-Sharing Networks: Security Risk,” SANS Institute InfoSec Reading Room, 2002, pp. 1-11. |
Davidson, Alan, “Peer-To-Peer File Sharing Privacy and Security,” Center for Democracy and Technology, May 15, 2003, pp. 1-16. |
AA-2002.02—File Sharing Activity Part 1 of 2—Security Implications of Using Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Software, May 12, 2002, pp. 1-5. |
Phemus, “Secret Manual for Downloading: Final Second Part of Answers to Questions for Downloading”, PC Japan, vol. 5, 11, pp. 174-179, Nov. 1, 2000. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion of the ISA mailed May 14, 2008 in connection with PCT Application No. PCT/US07/23321. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion of the ISA mailed Feb. 26, 2009 in connection with PCT Application No. PCT/US08/004614. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion of the ISA mailed Sep. 12, 2007 in connection with PCT Application No. PCT/US06/13666. |
United States General Accounting Office, Report to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives, “File Sharing Programs—Peer-To-Peer Networks Provide Ready Accessto Child Pornography,” Feb. 2003, pp. 1-32. |
Andersen, S., et al., Changes to Functionality in Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2 Part 2: Network Protection Technologies, Online, Sep. 15, 2004, pp. 1-56, XP002330123. |
Brandon Wiley, Freenet, “Inoperability Through Gateways,” Chapter 19, pp. 381-392. |
Findeli, M., “Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Networkgin,” On Line, Jul. 1, 2001, pp. 1-21. |
Goel, S., et al., “A Resilient Network That Can Operate Under Duress: To Support Communication Between Government Agencies during Crisis Situations,” IEEE, Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference pp. 1-11, Jan. 2004. |
Kim, K., and Park , D., “Subway: Peer-to-Peer Clustering of Clients for Web Proxy,” Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, [on line, Retrieved on Sep. 25, 2007]. Retrieved from the Internet URL:http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:Cljbt8-S9ckJ:ideal.cecs.missouri.edu/IMC/papers/377PD . . . . |
Liu, Jiangchuan, et al., “Distributed Distance Measurement for Large-Scale Networks,” Computer Networks 41 (2003) pp. 177-192. |
Marmor, Michael S., “Make the P2P Lead with Toadnode,” www.webtecniques.com, Dec. 2000, pp. 44-49. |
Markatos, E.P., Tracing a large-scale peer to peer system: an hour in the life of Gnutella, Cluster Computing and the Grid 2nd IEEE/ACM International Symposium CCGRID, 2002 Berlin, Germany, May 21-24, 2002, IEEE Comput. Soc., US, pp. 65-74. |
Scarlata, V., et al., “Responder Anonymity and Anonymous Peer-to-Peer File Sharing,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Network Protocols, Nov. 11, 2001, pp. 272-280. |
Siu Man Lui, et al., “Interoperability of Peer-To-Peer File Sharing,” ACM SIGecom Exchanges, vol. 3, No. 3, Aug. 2002, pp. 25-33. |
Tiversa, Inc., et al v. Cohen & Grigsby, P.C., Civil Division, Case No. GD 07/001515, Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, “Complaint,” 89 pages, dated Sep. 5, 2007. |
Tiversa, Inc., et al v. Cohen & Grigsby, P.C., Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, “Preliminary Objections and Brief in Support of Preliminary Objections,” 18 pages, dated Oct. 15, 2007. |
Tiversa, Inc., et al v. Cohen & Grigsby, P.C., Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, “First Amended Complaint,” 90 pages, dated Nov. 5, 2007. |
Tiversa, Inc., et al v. Cohen & Grigsby, P.C., Civil Division, Case No. GD 07/001515, Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, “Defendant's Preliminary Objections to First Amended Complaint and Brief in Support,” 14 pages, dated Nov. 21, 2007. |
Tiversa, Inc., et al v. Cohen & Grigsby, P.C., Civil Division, Case No. GD 07/001515, Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, “Court Order re: Defendant's Preliminary Objections to First Amended Complaint and Brief in Support,” 14 pages, dated Nov. 27, 2007. |
Tiversa, Inc., et al v. Cohen & Grigsby, P.C., Civil Division, Case No. GD 07/001515, Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, “Second Amended Complaint,” 89 pages, dated Dec. 11, 2007. |
Tiversa, Inc., et al v. Cohen & Grigsby, P.C., Civil Division, Case No. GD 07/001515, Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, “Answer to Second Amended Complaint,” 29 pages, dated Jan. 30, 2008. |
Tiversa, Inc., et al v. Cohen & Grigsby, P.C., Civil Division, Case No. GD 07/001515, Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, “Reply to New Matter,” 16 pages, dated Feb. 19, 2008. |
Ueda, et al., “Peer-to-Peer Network Topology Control within a Mobile Ad-hoc Network,” 2003 IEEE, pp. 243-247. |
Xiao, et al., “Mutual Anonymity Protocols for Hybrid Peer-to-Peer Systems,” Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, May 19-22, 2003. |
Zupeng, et al., “Research of Peer-to-Peer Network Architecture,” Proceedings of ICCT2003, pp. 312-315. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140195656 A1 | Jul 2014 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11039981 | Jan 2005 | US |
Child | 12899053 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12899053 | Oct 2010 | US |
Child | 14152015 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 10764111 | Jan 2004 | US |
Child | 11039981 | US |