[Standards] Council on Stanza Repeaters without Multicast

Tobias Markmann tmarkmann at googlemail.com
Fri Apr 4 14:30:08 UTC 2008


On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Carlo v. Loesch <CvL at mail.symlynx.com>
wrote:

> Carlo v. Loesch typeth:
> | more gain in MUC and pubsub, but you can't say that 50% protocol
>
> Maths wins over memory: 60% of 70% is 42%, not 50%.
>
> Since pubsub and MUC are hardly relevant, XMPP has a problem
> with 42% of all XMPP stanzas on the network being redundant overhead.
>
> That's why I repeatedly tend to focus on that problem first.
>
>
+1

Even if you keep all the fancy enhancement proposals outside simple XMPP
transfers presence stanzas to remote servers in a redundant form, like Carlo
already explained. Google experienced similar problems and they have an
immense number of users. Okay, they mostly have to handle with presence
stanzas internally but if XMPP gets even more adopted in open communities
federation will definitely increase. We need to come up with a multicast
like solution to keep traffic and computation time low.
Stanza Repeaters are one of many, already proposed, may they've been better
or not, solutions and if we don't provide such people why either move to
other systems/develop new ones or, if we have luck, develop own multicasting
enhancements to XMPP. The first case seems more likely.

I also support the idea of a general solution for the multicasting problem
rather then developing improvements to all XEPs that may need multicasting.
Presence, MUC, PubSub, PEP, and so on only differ in number of subscription
changes over time (from low in Presence to high in MUC protocol) and number
of stanzas over time. A general solution might not be best at all but fairly
good for each protocol which exists now or will exist in future.

Tobias
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20080404/a856cce4/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list