US20030191828A1
Expired / Lapsed
US
⏱️ 0.0 years remaining
Interest-based connections in peer-to-peer networks
Assignee: HP Inc
•
Filing: 2002-04-09
•
Granted: —
•
Expires: 2022-04-09
Abstract
Abstract Peers (p) monitor responses received from other peers (s, q) to requests for information and rate the responding peers on their ability to provide information of interest. When a responding peer (s) is discovered to frequently provide good results, the requesting peer (p) attempts to move closer to the responding peer (s) by creating a direct connection (p-s) with that peer and thereby promote the “good” peer to an “immediate” peer. If such a promotion would result in too many direct connections, the least important immediate peer is demoted to an “indirect” peer. The criteria (Imp) used for evaluating the relative importance of at least the immediate peers is preferably a time weighted average (Imp*(t)=α·Imp(t)+β·Imp*(t−1)) that also measures consistency and reliability and preferably includes factors not only representative of the peer's ability to provide requested information (Hits), but also of its proximity to the source of that information (1/Hops) so that it can prove that information efficiently. This leads to clusters of peers with similar interests, and in turn reduces the depth of searches typically required to achieve good results.
Inventors
- 👤 Murali Ramanathan
- 👤 Vasiliki Kalogeraki
- 👤 James Pruyne
Bibliographic Details
Application Number
—
Jurisdiction
US
Data Source
google_patents
Last Synchronized
2026-11-08 19:49
CPC Classifications
G; G06; G06F; G06F16/00; G06F16/10; G06F16/18; G06F16/182; G06F16/1834; G06F16/1837
Claims Analysis
Total Claims: 16
Claim 1
Independent Claim
134 words
1 . A method for reconfiguring a node (p) in a peer-to-peer network, comprising: calculating a first metric (Hits) for at least three other peers, including directly connected first and second immediate peers (q 1 ,q 1 ) and a remote third peer (s) that is not directly connected to the node being reconfigured, calculating a second metric (Hits, Hits/Hops, and/or fn(Hits(t), Hops(t)) for at least the immediate peers (q 1 ,q 1 ), and dropping the direct connection to said second peer and establishing a direct connection to said third peer if the calculated first metric for the third peer is greater than a corresponding metric for at least one of the immediate peers and the calculated second metric for the second peer is less than a corresponding value for other immediate peers.
Claim 2
Dependent Claim
134 words
1 . A method for reconfiguring a node (p) in a peer-to-peer network, comprising: calculating a first metric (Hits) for at least three other peers, including directly connected first and second immediate peers (q 1 ,q 1 ) and a remote third peer (s) that is not directly connected to the node being reconfigured, calculating a second metric (Hits, Hits/Hops, and/or fn(Hits(t), Hops(t)) for at least the immediate peers (q 1 ,q 1 ), and dropping the direct connection to said second peer and establishing a direct connection to said third peer if the calculated first metric for the third peer is greater than a corresponding metric for at least one of the immediate peers and the calculated second metric for the second peer is less than a corresponding value for other immediate peers.
Claim 3
Dependent Claim
54 words
2 . The method of claim 1 wherein at least the first metric is representative of the peer's interests and measures for an immediate peer not only received content (Hits) originating at that immediate peer (q), but also received content (Hits) received from indirect peers in response to queries forwarded by that indirect peer.
Claim 4
Dependent Claim
39 words
3 . The method of claim 2 wherein at least the second metric also includes a measure of the logical distance (hops) between the local peer originating the query and a remote peer (s,q) associated with the received content.
Claim 5
Dependent Claim
28 words
4 . The method of claim 3 wherein at least the second metric takes into account a time weighted average (importance) of previous calculations of said second metric.
Claim 6
Dependent Claim
99 words
5 . A method for dynamically measuring the current importance of a directly connected peer in a peer-to-peer network, comprising: calculating a first factor representative of the current contribution of the peer being measured based at least in part on the number of unique replies first received via said peer, calculating a second factor representative of the current efficiency of the peer being measured based at least in part on the number of hops traveled by the first unique replies received via said peer, and using both said first factor and said second factor to calculate said current importance.
Claim 7
Dependent Claim
99 words
5 . A method for dynamically measuring the current importance of a directly connected peer in a peer-to-peer network, comprising: calculating a first factor representative of the current contribution of the peer being measured based at least in part on the number of unique replies first received via said peer, calculating a second factor representative of the current efficiency of the peer being measured based at least in part on the number of hops traveled by the first unique replies received via said peer, and using both said first factor and said second factor to calculate said current importance.
Claim 8
Dependent Claim
26 words
6 . The method of claim 5 further comprising the step of calculating a time weighted importance derived from at least two successive current importance calculations.
Claim 9
Dependent Claim
38 words
7 . The method of claim 6 wherein said time weighted average importance gives a higher ranking to a connection that maintains a relatively high contribution and a relatively high efficiency over a relatively long period of time.
Claim 10
Dependent Claim
22 words
8 . The method of claim 6 wherein said time weighted average importance gives a greater weight to a more recent measurement.
Claim 11
Dependent Claim
225 words
9 . A dynamically reconfigurable peer-to-peer network comprising a plurality of physically connected addressable nodes, each said node comprising: an addressing module for maintaining a list of said addressable nodes and identifying which are currently considered immediate peers and which are considered indirect peers; a query module for generating a query message to each of the immediate peers for subsequent preparation of a reply message and/or forwarding to one or more other peers; a response module for receiving at least a first unique reply to said query message; a history module for maintaining statistical information on unique replies originating both from said immediate peers and from said indirect peers; a calculator module for calculating: a contribution score for each of said peers based at least in part on the number of unique first replies originating at or received via the peer being measured over a predetermined period of time, and an importance score for at least each of said immediate peers based at least in part on the logical distance to the peer from which each said unique first reply originated; and a reconfiguration module responsive to the addressing module and to the calculator module for replacing a direct peer-to-peer connection to an immediate peer having a relatively low importance score with a corresponding connection to an indirect peer having a relatively high contribution score.
Claim 12
Dependent Claim
225 words
9 . A dynamically reconfigurable peer-to-peer network comprising a plurality of physically connected addressable nodes, each said node comprising: an addressing module for maintaining a list of said addressable nodes and identifying which are currently considered immediate peers and which are considered indirect peers; a query module for generating a query message to each of the immediate peers for subsequent preparation of a reply message and/or forwarding to one or more other peers; a response module for receiving at least a first unique reply to said query message; a history module for maintaining statistical information on unique replies originating both from said immediate peers and from said indirect peers; a calculator module for calculating: a contribution score for each of said peers based at least in part on the number of unique first replies originating at or received via the peer being measured over a predetermined period of time, and an importance score for at least each of said immediate peers based at least in part on the logical distance to the peer from which each said unique first reply originated; and a reconfiguration module responsive to the addressing module and to the calculator module for replacing a direct peer-to-peer connection to an immediate peer having a relatively low importance score with a corresponding connection to an indirect peer having a relatively high contribution score.
Claim 13
Dependent Claim
20 words
10 . The network of claim 9 wherein said importance score is also based on a corresponding said contribution score.
Claim 14
Dependent Claim
25 words
11 . The network of claim 10 wherein said importance score is a time weighted importance derived from at least two successive importance score calculations.
Claim 15
Dependent Claim
39 words
12 . The network of claim 11 wherein said time weighted importance gives a higher ranking to a connection that maintains a relatively high said contribution and a relatively said logical distance over a relatively long period of time.
Claim 16
Dependent Claim
21 words
13 . The network of claim 11 wherein said time weighted importance gives a greater weight to a more recent measurement.
References Cited (Backward Citations)
US5974236A
Cited
US5701467A
Cited
US5557786A
Cited
US6055568A
Cited
US6502175B1
Cited
US7027773B1
Cited
US6836463B2
Cited
US6742023B1
Cited
US6791949B1
Cited
US6857012B2
Cited
US20020059025A1
Cited
US20020073204A1
Cited
US20020184311A1
Cited
US20030051051A1
Cited
US20030079003A1
Cited
US20030120662A1
Cited
US6961310B2
Cited
USPTO Annuity & Maintenance Windows
Maintenance schedule is calculated for granted US utility patents.