Difference between revisions of "New Download Approaches"

From Second Life Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (New Download Approches moved to New Download Approaches: spelling error)
(Redirecting to Web Textures)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
This page is for showing the different pros and cons of different approaches of new ways of getting new URL's to the client.  A big question on the minds of developers is LL's policies on [[Expected Privacy]].  Understanding what LL thinks on this may lead us to understanding what LL will do.  Let's do our best to fill this out with both sides.
#REDIRECT [[Web_Textures]]
 
=Client downloading of URL=
The client directly downloads the URL.
==Pros==
===Technical===
Simple and straightfoward.
===Privacy===
Parcel owners in Second Life will be able to implement the same defense techniques that have been used in IRC for years. The problem of griefing on unverified alts will be mitigated.
 
==Cons==
===Technical===
Minor risk that some users won't be able to reach some URLs, causing support issues because a user can't download a spacific image.
===Privacy===
Risk due to items that can track users, possibly allowing alts to be matched to their owners.
 
=LL Downloading of URL, passing back to client=
This solution suggests that if anyone needs to download a URL, that LL will download the URL, then host a copy of that image on LL's servers.  It will then be treated like any other asset hosted by LL.  The client will request the URL from the file server, and the file server will spit back a copy of the requested image.
==Pros==
===Technical===
Guarantees that the image will be served up in a timely fashion because it will be hosted by LL's content servers. '''NOTE: Actually this is not true because LL would still have to fetch the image from the source and if the source is down or has a slow connection LL won't be able to fetch it any better than a client'''
 
===Privacy===
Good for privacy because the user never connects to a foreign server.
==Cons==
===Technical===
Lots of bandwidth on LL's part.  Possible additional latency because when the first time an image is requested, LL will have to pull a copy of the requested assets from the web server.
 
Difficulty in determining which textures are dynamic and cannot be cached, leaves the potential for a dynamic image creating an unlimited number of cached copies on the LL asset server.
 
Puts more load on the asset server as it has to fetch and cache foreign data, adds new code paths with more potential security risks to the most critical service in Second Life.
 
===Privacy===
None known.
 
=LL Hosted proxy network=
LL hosting proxies for our clients to connect with.  Possibly a dupe of LL Downloading URL
==Pros==
===Technical===
===Privacy===
==Cons==
Has a negative benefit-cost equation for LL, keep dreaming
===Technical===
===Privacy===
 
=P2p-based=
A Bittorrent-like p2p downloading system.
==Pros==
===Technical===
===Privacy===
==Cons==
===Technical===
The overhead in time and bandwidth of having to find a peer hosting every requested asset would make this infeasible for a real-time metaverse like Second Life
===Privacy===
This doesn't address any of the privacy concerns at all. Bittorrent-like protocols expose IP addresses of people sharing and requesting textures so it would still be possible to tie sensors in-world to requests for unique textures also at that location. Maybe the person proposing this was thinking of a multiple hop network like Tor or a darknet protocol like Freenet?
 
=Anonymous P2p-based proxy=
A Tor-like p2p downloading system.
==Pros==
===Technical===
===Privacy===
==Cons==
===Technical===
Ever tried to use Tor or Freenet?
===Privacy===

Latest revision as of 22:35, 25 January 2007

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://wiki.secondlife.com/w/index.php?title=New_Download_Approaches&oldid=6741"