[Standards] Council on Stanza Repeaters without Multicast

Alexander Gnauck gnauck at ag-software.de
Thu Apr 3 21:40:48 UTC 2008


Carlo v. Loesch schrieb:
> Yes, that's why I started thinking about something better in 1990.
> I understood there was no way for IRC to be 'fixed' because its design
> is fundamentally flawed. XMPP is only syntactically flawed, which is
> a much better starting point. And you can argue that's just my opinion.
> That's ok. Still IRC does multicast, and XMPP is still missing that,
> and Pedro is the kind of person who can see the impact of that each day.

I also see this impact. With the situation we have *today* I agree with 
Dave that we don't save much traffic and stanzas with repeaters. There 
is nearly no PubSub usage at all today, and in the most Muc rooms we 
have only 5-30 participants. If I look at the participants of jdev today 
than the most users have local jabber.org Jids, and max. 2 or 3 
participants are on the same federated server. People join and leave, so 
there will be a tie between the stanzas we save in the repeater and the 
overhead to maintain the distribution list in the repeater.

But we have to look forward. We all want to see the killer pubsub 
application with 100K subscribers and more. We also want people to 
switch from IRC to Muc and see tons of Muc rooms with 100+ participants. 
And maybe we define other 1->n protocols in the future. In the long run 
we will benefit a lot from repeaters.

Compression is great and saves lots of bandwidth. Compression + 
Repeaters is even better and will save more bandwidth and stanzas.

Alex




More information about the Standards mailing list