KR20180127852A - Method for calculating reliability of peer and method for updating peer evaluation data - Google Patents

Abstract

The present invention relates to a method for calculating peer reliability and a method for updating peer evaluation data, and more particularly, to a method for calculating peer reliability, which considers content provided by a peer and a network state of the peer and a method for updating peer evaluation data. According to an embodiment of the present invention, the method for calculating peer reliability, which calculates the reliability of a first peer sharing content in a peer-to-peer network, comprises the steps of: calculating a content reliability value for content provided by a first peer using evaluation information on the content which is previously evaluated; calculating a network reliability value for a network state of the first peer using evaluation information on a network which is previously evaluated; and calculating a peer reliability value of the first peer from the content and network reliability values.

Description

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 1. Field of the Invention [0001] The present invention relates to a peer-

To a peer-to-peer network service provision, and more particularly to a service that provides a peer's reliability assessment in a peer-to-peer network.

The proliferation of mobile devices such as smart phones and the development of communication technologies such as Bluetooth and RFID are increasing the provision of mobile peer-to-peer network services. In mobile peer-to-peer networks, however, due to limited factors such as coverage, battery, memory, storage space, etc., the technology used in existing peer-to-peer networks is applied directly to the mobile peer- There are several limitations to DEM.

In a peer-to-peer network, content can be shared with false information or malicious information due to direct communication between peers. Therefore, it is necessary to verify the reliability of the content shared in the peer-to-peer network.

According to one aspect, a method of calculating a reliability of a first peer, in which a node device of a peer-to-peer network calculates a reliability of a first peer that shares content in the network, Calculating a network-reliability value for the network status of the first peer using the previously-evaluated network evaluation information and a content-reliability value for the content provided by the first peer, And computing a peer-to-reliability value of the first peer from the reliability and network-reliability values.

According to one embodiment, calculating the content-confidence value comprises: comparing the content rating information with the content, the first peer, the second peer receiving the content from the first peer, the score the second peer has rated for the content, It is possible to extract from the content evaluation information table including the viewpoint information as an item.

According to another embodiment, the step of calculating the network-reliability value comprises the steps of: storing the network evaluation information as a first peer, a second peer monitoring the network status of the first peer, and a network packet transmission and reception frequency information item It can be extracted from the network packet information table.

According to another embodiment, the network packet transmission and reception frequency information includes the number of times that the first peer transmits the control packet and the data packet directly to the second peer and the number of times that the first peer transmits the control packet and the data packet to the second peer, Packet and the number of times the data packet is transmitted.

According to yet another embodiment, calculating the content-confidence value comprises: when the second peer requests a peer-reliability value of the first peer, the second peer is in direct communication with the first peer, The content-reliability value can be calculated using the evaluation value and the indirect evaluation value evaluated by the third peer in communication with the first peer.

According to yet another embodiment, calculating the content-reliability value may calculate the content-reliability value by varying the weights of the direct evaluation value and the indirect evaluation value.

According to yet another embodiment, calculating the network-reliability value comprises: if the second peer requests a peer-to-trust value of the first peer, the second peer is in direct communication with the first peer The network-reliability value can be calculated using the evaluation value and the indirect evaluation value evaluated by the third peer in communication with the first peer.

According to yet another embodiment, calculating the network-reliability value may calculate the network-reliability value by varying the weights of the direct evaluation value and the indirect evaluation value.

According to yet another embodiment, calculating the peer-reliability value may calculate the peer-reliability value by varying the weighting of the content-reliability and the network-reliability value.

According to another aspect, a method for updating evaluation data used by a node device of a peer-to-peer network to calculate a peer-reliability of a target peer sharing content in the network, The data is composed of the evaluator, the target peer, the evaluation information, and the point-in-time information for distinguishing the point of time at which the evaluation point is evaluated. As evaluation data for the same target peer, data between the existing evaluation data and the new evaluation data to be updated If there is a difference between the evaluator and the evaluation information, it is possible to determine whether or not the evaluation data is updated using the viewpoint information.

According to one embodiment, when the viewpoint information of the new evaluation data appears more recently than the viewpoint information of the previous evaluation data, the initial evaluation data is updated to the new evaluation data, and the viewpoint information of the new evaluation data is more If it appears in the past, it is possible to retain the evaluation data.

1 illustrates a method of sharing content between peers in consideration of the reliability of the peer according to an embodiment.
2 illustrates a method of calculating a peer reliability according to an embodiment.
FIG. 3 illustrates a method of sharing content among peers in consideration of the reliability of the peer according to an embodiment.
4 shows a table showing evaluation information of content shared by a peer according to an embodiment.
5 illustrates control and data packet transmission between peers according to one embodiment.
6 shows a table showing network evaluation information that evaluates the network status of peers sharing content according to one embodiment.
FIG. 7 illustrates a table representing evaluation information for a peer, including network content of the peer and content shared by the peer according to one embodiment.
FIG. 8 illustrates a method for updating the evaluation information between peers without communication history according to an embodiment.

Hereinafter, embodiments will be described in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings. However, the scope of the rights is not limited or limited by these embodiments. Like reference symbols in the drawings denote like elements.

The terms used in the following description are chosen to be generic and universal in the art to which they are related, but other terms may exist depending on the development and / or change in technology, customs, preferences of the technician, and the like. Accordingly, the terminology used in the following description should not be construed as limiting the technical thought, but should be understood in the exemplary language used to describe the embodiments.

Also, in certain cases, there may be a term chosen arbitrarily by the applicant, in which case the meaning of the detailed description in the corresponding description section. Therefore, the term used in the following description should be understood based on the meaning of the term, not the name of a simple term, and the contents throughout the specification.

1 illustrates a method of sharing content between peers in consideration of the reliability of the peer according to an embodiment. 1 can be understood with reference to the information 120 about the arrow.

The first peer 100 may request the second peer 101, the third peer 102, the fourth peer 103 and the fifth peer 104, which are neighboring peers, with information on the necessary content. At this time, neighboring peers can transmit information on the content they have to the first peer. According to one embodiment, information 110 about the content that the second peer has may be transmitted to the first peer. Also, information on the reliability of the peer can be transmitted together while transmitting information about the content.

The first peer may communicate directly with the neighboring peer, request information about the content, indirectly communicate with other peers communicating with neighboring peers, and request information about the content. According to one embodiment, the sixth peer 105, the seventh peer 106, and the eighth peer 107, which are other peers communicating with neighboring peers, may indirectly request information about the content. For example, if the first peer requests content information from the fourth peer, the fourth peer may request the content information from the sixth peer and the seventh peer, which are nearby peers. Similarly, if the first peer requests content information from the fifth peer, the fifth peer can request the content information from the eighth peer as a neighboring peer. Alternatively, if the fourth peer knows the content information of the seventh peer that is already a neighboring peer, the content information held by the seventh peer may be directly transmitted to the first peer.

In one embodiment, the first peer may have a peer assessment information database for other peers communicating with neighboring peers and neighboring peers. There may be no peer evaluation information for some neighboring peers and other peers, in which case the neighboring peers and other peers may update their own peer evaluation information database from the peer evaluation information database, The peer evaluation information can be obtained.

The reliability 130 for each of the peers can be calculated from the peer evaluation information database, and the calculated reliability allows the first peer to determine from which peer the content data will be transmitted.

In one embodiment, if the first peer requests content information from the second peer and the second peer requests the content information from the sixth peer that is a nearby peer, the sixth peer may send the content information to the second peer And the second peer can transmit the corresponding content information to the first peer. In this way, the first peer can communicate indirectly with the sixth peer, not with the neighboring peer.

The first peer may receive content information from other peers communicating with neighboring peers and neighboring peers. From the transmitted information, it is possible to determine the peers having the contents required by the first peer, and the first of the peers can request the data of the contents by selecting the peer with the highest reliability. According to one embodiment, the first peer may request the data of the content to the sixth peer with the highest peer reliability, and the sixth peer may transmit the data of the content directly or indirectly to the first peer.

2 illustrates a method of calculating a peer reliability according to an embodiment. 1 shows the overall flow of calculating the reliability 130 of a peer.

The table data 203 indicating the evaluation information on the content held by the target peer and the table data 206 indicating the network status of the target peer are collected when the peer to be evaluated is the target peer, Information can be collected (200). The process of creating the content evaluation information table 203 and the network packet information table 206 will be described in detail with reference to FIG. 4 and FIG. Next, the peer evaluation information is calculated 210 from the content evaluation information and the network evaluation information (network packet information), and a table 215 indicating the peer evaluation information can be created. The process of creating the peer evaluation information table 215 will be described in detail with reference to FIG.

When the peer requesting the content information and the content data to the target peers is referred to as a first peer, the first peer can collect the evaluation information table of the target peers to construct the evaluation information table database, (220) to calculate the reliability.

The reliability calculation of the target peers is calculated from the content reliability 223 and the network reliability 226, and the content reliability is calculated from the information of the content evaluation table, and the network reliability can be calculated from the network information table.

The content reliability and the network reliability calculation can be performed by direct evaluation and indirect evaluation. The content reliability and the network reliability calculation are directly communicated with the first peer of the evaluation table database of the target peers, and the first peer performs the evaluation The data is classified as direct evaluation, and the evaluation data accumulated and accumulated while other peers other than the first peer communicate with the target peer can be classified as indirect evaluation.

If they are categorized as direct evaluation and indirect evaluation, they can be reflected with different weights when reflecting data to calculate reliability. Of course, weights can be made the same. The contents reliability 223 and the network reliability 226 will be described in detail below with the formulas.

The reliability of the peer can be calculated 230 from the calculated content reliability and network reliability. The database storing the reliability of the target peers calculated as described above is stored and the content data is retrieved from any of the peers communicating with neighboring peers or neighboring peers that are judged to have the content information required by the first peer In order to decide whether to receive the data, an accumulated reliability database can be utilized.

FIG. 3 illustrates a method of sharing content among peers in consideration of the reliability of the peer according to an embodiment.

The peer requesting the content information and the content data to the target peers is referred to as an X-peer 300, and another peer communicating with a neighboring peer and a neighboring peer is referred to as Ps (305). At this time, when the X-peer requests information about whether or not the X-peer has the content required for the Ps-peers, the PS-peers can transmit information about the peer that owns the content to the X-peer. At this time, the X-peer can request a peer evaluation information table for calculating the reliability of the peers in order to select the peer having the highest reliability among the plurality of peers possessing the content and to receive the data of the corresponding content.

When information on the peer evaluation information table is requested, the Ps peers can transmit (310) the peer evaluation information table 315 held by each of the peers to the X peer. The peer evaluation information table held by each of the peers may have evaluation information for a plurality of peers utilizing the peer-to-peer network.

The X-peer can calculate the reliability of the peers using the received peer evaluation information table, and select the most reliable peer among the peers having the necessary content (320).

The X-peer can request content data to the selected peer, and the selected peer can request content data to the X-peer.

After receiving the content data, the X-peer may perform content evaluation 330 to record the evaluation information for the peer that transmitted the content data. The content evaluation table 333 is created based on information that the X-peer has evaluated about the peer that has transmitted the content data, and the network packet transmission information of the peer that transmitted the content data is updated to create the network packet information table 336 . The network packet information table will be described in detail with reference to FIG.

The content evaluation information table and the network packet information table newly created by the X peer accumulate the previously estimated data and provide information to the peer evaluation information table 315 that has accumulated the database to newly update the peer evaluation information table .

4 shows a table showing evaluation information of content shared by a peer according to an embodiment.

S_PID indicates the ID of the peer who evaluated the content, and R_PID indicates the ID of the peer who provided the content as the evaluated peer. C_ID indicates the ID of the content, Rate indicates the score of the evaluated content, and Time indicates the time when the S_PID peer evaluates the content.

According to Fig. 4, peer X communicates with peer Y, and the value shared and evaluated with C_1 content is 0.5. Similarly, peer X communicates with peer Z, sharing and evaluating C_a content is 0.9, and the temporal posterior is evaluated for C_a content after the time X shares Y and C_1 content. Similarly, peer X communicates with peer Z and shares and evaluates C_3 content is 0.7, and the temporal posterior is later than the time X is shared and evaluated by C_a content from Z peer.

The content evaluation table may be stored and stored by each peer as a database. The content evaluation table can be used to calculate a content reliability value when the content is shared between peers, and to calculate the reliability of the peer from the content reliability table, thereby determining a peer to which the content is shared.

5 illustrates control and data packet transmission between peers according to one embodiment.

According to one embodiment of FIG. 5, peer X 500 may send a data packet to peer W 510. Also, peer X may send a data packet to peer Y 530, and peer Y may transmit a data packet received from peer X to a neighboring peer.

According to one embodiment of FIG. 5, peer X may request a control packet from neighboring peers. The neighboring peers (peer X, peer Y, and peer Z 520) that received the request of peer X may send the corresponding control packet to peer X if they have the corresponding control packet, However, if neighboring peers have a corresponding control packet and can make a request, they can request neighboring peers to transmit the control packet to the peer X.

As such, peer X may send or receive data packets and control packets directly to neighboring peers, and may receive data packets < RTI ID = 0.0 > from neighboring peers, And control packets, or to transmit data packets and control packets to other peers.

The data packets between the peers and the transmission information of the control packets are used as information for evaluating the network status of the peer, which will be described in detail with reference to FIG. 6 below.

6 shows a table showing network evaluation information that evaluates the network status of peers sharing content according to one embodiment.

S_PID indicates a peer that monitors the network status, and R_PID indicates a peer to be evaluated, that is, a monitored peer. In other words, the S_PID communicates with the R_PID, records information on packets transmitted and received by neighboring peers communicating with nearby peers or neighboring peers of the R_PID, and transmits a network evaluation information table Can be recorded. CP_self represents the number of control packets transmitted to other peers in which R_PID directly communicates. CP_other indicates that the R_PID does not directly communicate. However, for two communicating peers, Indicates the number of times a control packet is sent to a peer. DP_self represents the number of data packets transmitted to other peers in which R_PID directly communicates. DP_other indicates that the R_PID is not directly communicating. However, for two communicating peers, The number of times a data packet is transmitted to a peer.

6, when the peer X is monitoring the network status of the peer Y, the number of transmission of control packets transmitted directly to other peers with which the peer Y is directly communicating is 13, and the control between the two peers The number of packet transmission mediations is 15. In addition, the number of data packets transmitted directly to other peers communicating directly is three, and the number of times of transmission of data packet between two peers is two.

Similarly, according to FIG. 6, when peer X is monitoring the network status of peer Z, the number of transmission of control packets directly transmitted to other peers communicating directly with peer Z is 11, and control packet transmission between two peers The number of mediations is nine. In addition, the number of data packets transmitted directly to other peers communicating directly is three, and the number of times of transmission of data packets between two peers is one.

Similarly, according to FIG. 6, when the peer X is monitoring the network status of the peer W, the number of transmission of control packets directly transmitted to other peers communicating directly with the peer W is 8, The number of transmission mediations is six. In addition, the number of data packets transmitted directly to other peers communicating directly is 2, and the number of times of data packet transmission between two peers is 0.

Thus, an assessment of the network state of the peer may be performed taking into account the number of times the peer transmits and receives control packets and data packets while communicating with nearby peers or nearby peers.

FIG. 7 illustrates a table representing evaluation information for a peer, including network content of the peer and content shared by the peer according to one embodiment.

7, the S_PID corresponds to the peer to be evaluated in the content evaluation table or the peer to be monitored in the network evaluation table, and the R_PID denotes the peer to be evaluated in the content evaluation table or the monitoring in the network evaluation table It corresponds to the receiving peer. C_Rate represents the average of the evaluation values for the plurality of contents provided by the peer, and N_Rate represents the average of the plurality of evaluation values for the network state of the peer. C_Count indicates the number of times that S_PID has evaluated the R_PID, and LUT indicates the index in which the evaluation information on the peer is recently updated. When the LUT values are compared, the higher the LUT value, the more recently updated evaluation information can be obtained.

The C_Rate calculation formula will be described in more detail through the following equation (1).

In Equation (1), N means the number of contents, Contentlist means a content evaluation list, and x and y mean S_PID and R_PID in the content evaluation information table, respectively. According to Equation (1), C_Rate may be calculated by averaging a plurality of pieces of content evaluation information that have been evaluated in a communication process of transmitting a content between x, i.e., S_PID and y, i.e., R_PID.

Next, the N_rate calculation formula will be described in more detail through the following Equation 2, Equation 3 and Equation 4.

The network packet information is determined in accordance with the number of times of transmission and reception of the control packet and the data packet. Information on the control packet is calculated by reflecting the Control Packet Rate according to Equation (2) 3, the data packet rate can be calculated and reflected.

According to Equation (2), x and y may correspond to S_PID and R_PID respectively in the network evaluation information table. Control Packet Rate is a control packet transmitted between S_PID and R_PID. The number of times control packet transmitted directly to S_PID by R_PID and the number of times control packet transmitted to S_PID by another peer is transmitted to another peer. It can be determined by calculating the proportion of the number of times of transmission to S_PID.

Similarly, according to Equation (3), x and y may correspond to S_PID and R_PID respectively in the network evaluation information table. Data Packet Rate is the number of times the R_PID transmitted the data packet directly to the S_PID and the number of times the data packet transmitted by the other peer was delivered to the S_PID in transmitting the data packet between the S_PID and the R_PID. It can be determined by calculating the proportion of the number of times of transmission to S_PID.

According to Equation (4), the network packet information can be determined by summing the CPR (control packet rate) and the DPR (data packet rate) by a weighting factor of? And?, Respectively. At this time, the sum of? And? Can be 1.

7, the content evaluation information is 0.5, the network evaluation information is 0.7, and the number of times of content sharing, that is, the number of times of evaluation is one, as the information that the peer X receives from the peer Y and evaluated for the peer Y. [ Similarly, the content evaluation information is 0.8, the network evaluation information is 0.9, and the number of times of content sharing, that is, the number of times of evaluation is one, as information that the peer X receives the content from the peer Z and evaluates the peer Z. Similarly, the peer Z receives the content from the peer W and evaluates the peer W. The content evaluation information is 0.9, the network evaluation information is 0.4, and the number of times of content sharing, that is, the number of evaluation times is two. At this time, comparing the LUT values of each evaluation shows that the peer Z is relatively recent when peer Z is evaluated for peer W, rather than when peer X evaluated peer Y, It is relatively recent when X evaluates peer Z. Of course, higher LUTs are not limited to being relatively recently evaluated, and LUTs can be viewed as an index that reflects the up-to-date nature of the peer's peer-to-peer evaluation.

Also, the LUT is an indicator that reflects the latestness of the evaluation information of the peer, and can be applied to update the evaluation information of the evaluation target peer held by the neighboring peers to the latest.

For example, if peer X has evaluation information data for peer Y and peer Z, but has a higher LUT value for peer Y and peer Z (according to one embodiment, the higher the LUT value, the more recently evaluated evaluation information ), It can receive the latest evaluation information about peer Y and peer Z from another peer and update the evaluation information about peer Y and peer Z that peer X has have.

FIG. 8 illustrates a method for updating the evaluation information between peers without communication history according to an embodiment.

As described above, a content requesting peer may receive the content data from nearby peers that are communicating directly, or may receive the content data from other peers that are not directly in communication, but are communicating with nearby peers It may be transmitted. Thus, the peer requesting the content may need an evaluation information table for other peers that do not have direct communication history, in order to determine whether the content received from other peers as mentioned above is reliable data. That is, the peer requesting the content may need the evaluation information table data of other peers to calculate the reliability of other peers that do not have a direct communication history. Fig. 8 shows a method for updating the information on the evaluation information table of other peers in which the content requesting peer has no direct communication history in such a case.

8, information indicating that peer Z 830 owns the content, as well as peer Y 820 and peer W 810, which are in direct communication with peer X 800, Or an evaluation information table for the peer Z that does not have a direct communication history in order to calculate the reliability value for both the peer Y, the peer W, and the peer Z, received from the peer W. [

Existing peer X has an evaluation information table 803 of peers that have transmitted and received and accumulated content data with other peers in the peer-to-peer network. If there is no history that peer X has previously communicated directly with peer Z The evaluation information table 803 may have no evaluation information on the peer Z. [ On the other hand, since there is a history in which the peer Y or the peer W directly communicates with the peer Z, the evaluation information table 823 stored in the process of sharing the content with the peers Y may include evaluation information on the peer Z Similarly, since there is a history in which the peer W directly communicates with the peer Z, evaluation information on the peer Z may be included in the evaluation information table 813 accumulated in the process of sharing the content with the peers.

Peer X can receive evaluation information on peer Z from evaluation information table 823 for other peers owned by such peer Y and evaluation information table 813 for other peers owned by peer W .

8, the peer X receives the evaluation information on the peer Y from the peer Y and the evaluation information on the peer Z from the peer W, and adds evaluation information on the peer Z to the evaluation information table 803 for the other peers owned by the peer X 806).

Peer X may use the evaluation information 806 for the added peer Z to calculate the confidence for peer Z and determine from which peer, peer Y, peer W and peer Z, to receive the content data .

In this case, there is a direct communication history of the peer X. In this process, the information that accumulates the evaluation information and the indirect content evaluation information provided from the neighboring peers communicating with the peer X do not have a direct communication history, 5, 6, and 7, respectively.

According to Equation (5), when there is no direct communication history between the peer x and the peer z, among the content evaluation information of the peer z owned by the peer x, the peer having a history of direct communication with the peer z The average value of the content evaluation information is subtracted from the content evaluation information for each of the peers z, and the absolute value of the content evaluation information is designated as a PD value through a value obtained by subtracting 1 from the absolute value of the content evaluation information, It can be utilized as a weight for calculating evaluation reliability.

According to Equation (6), Indirect Trust (indirect content evaluation reliability) can be calculated by applying the PD weight to the value of DT or the direct content evaluation reliability using Equation (6).

According to Equation (7), the final content reliability can be determined by summing up the direct content evaluation reliability and the indirect content evaluation reliability by a weighting factor of? * And? *, Respectively. The value obtained by adding the weights of? * and? * may be 1. Of course, the weights may be the same value.

In this case, when either the direct evaluation reliability or the indirect evaluation reliability is absent, the final reliability value of the peer may be small due to the reason of applying a weight value smaller than 1. In this case, for example, either the direct evaluation reliability or the indirect evaluation reliability The weight of one of them can be fixed to about 0.8, thereby reducing the error that the final reliability value may be smaller than the actual reliability level.

Similarly, in the case of the network reliability, the final network reliability value can be calculated by reflecting the indirectly evaluated network reliability and the direct evaluation network reliability with different weights from the following equations (8), (9) and (10).

According to Equation (8), when there is no direct communication history between peer x and peer z, among peer z network evaluation information of peer x, the peer having direct communication history with peer z evaluates the direct network evaluation value The average value of the network evaluation information is subtracted from the network evaluation information for each peer z and the absolute value thereof is designated as a value of NPD through a value obtained by subtracting 1 from the network evaluation information, It can be utilized as a weight for calculating evaluation reliability.

According to Equation (9), the reliability of the NIDT, that is, the indirect network evaluation reliability, can be calculated by applying the weight of NPD to the value of the NDT, i.e., the direct network evaluation reliability, using the weight of NPD.

According to Equation (10), the final network reliability is calculated by summing the direct network evaluation reliability (i.e., NDT) and the indirect content evaluation reliability (i.e., NIDT) You can decide. The value obtained by adding the weights of? * and? * may be 1. Of course, the weights may be the same value.

In this case, when either the direct evaluation reliability or the indirect evaluation reliability is absent, the final reliability value of the peer may be small due to the reason of applying a weight value smaller than 1. In this case, for example, either the direct evaluation reliability or the indirect evaluation reliability The weight of one of them can be fixed to about 0.8, thereby reducing the error that the final reliability value may be smaller than the actual reliability level.

According to Equation (11), the Peer Trust, that is, the peer reliability can be finally determined in consideration of the Network Trust, that is, the network reliability and the content trust, that is, the content reliability. Specifically, it is possible to determine the network reliability and the content reliability as values obtained by adding the weights to? * And? *, Respectively. The value obtained by adding the weights of? * and? * may be 1. Of course, the weights may be the same value.

The apparatus described above may be implemented as a hardware component, a software component, and / or a combination of hardware components and software components. For example, the apparatus and components described in the embodiments may be implemented within a computer system, such as, for example, a processor, a controller, an arithmetic logic unit (ALU), a digital signal processor, a microcomputer, a field programmable array (FPA) A programmable logic unit (PLU), a microprocessor, or any other device capable of executing and responding to instructions. The processing device may execute an operating system (OS) and one or more software applications running on the operating system. The processing device may also access, store, manipulate, process, and generate data in response to execution of the software. For ease of understanding, the processing apparatus may be described as being used singly, but those skilled in the art will recognize that the processing apparatus may have a plurality of processing elements and / As shown in FIG. For example, the processing unit may comprise a plurality of processors or one processor and one controller. Other processing configurations are also possible, such as a parallel processor.

The software may include a computer program, code, instructions, or a combination of one or more of the foregoing, and may be configured to configure the processing device to operate as desired or to process it collectively or collectively Device can be commanded. The software and / or data may be in the form of any type of machine, component, physical device, virtual equipment, computer storage media, or device , Or may be permanently or temporarily embodied in a transmitted signal wave. The software may be distributed over a networked computer system and stored or executed in a distributed manner. The software and data may be stored on one or more computer readable recording media.

The method according to an embodiment may be implemented in the form of a program command that can be executed through various computer means and recorded in a computer-readable medium. The computer-readable medium may include program instructions, data files, data structures, and the like, alone or in combination. The program instructions to be recorded on the medium may be those specially designed and configured for the embodiments or may be available to those skilled in the art of computer software. Examples of computer-readable media include magnetic media such as hard disks, floppy disks and magnetic tape; optical media such as CD-ROMs and DVDs; magnetic media such as floppy disks; Magneto-optical media, and hardware devices specifically configured to store and execute program instructions such as ROM, RAM, flash memory, and the like. Examples of program instructions include machine language code such as those produced by a compiler, as well as high-level language code that can be executed by a computer using an interpreter or the like. The hardware devices described above may be configured to operate as one or more software modules to perform the operations of the embodiments, and vice versa.

Although the embodiments have been described with reference to the drawings, various modifications and variations may be made by those skilled in the art. For example, it is to be understood that the techniques described may be performed in a different order than the described methods, and / or that components of the described systems, structures, devices, circuits, Lt; / RTI > or equivalents, even if it is replaced or replaced.

Therefore, other implementations, other embodiments, and equivalents to the claims are also within the scope of the following claims.

Claims (11)

A peer reliability calculation method in which a node device of a peer-to-peer network calculates reliability of a first peer sharing content in the network,
Calculating a content-reliability value for the content provided by the first peer using the evaluation information for the content that has been evaluated;
Calculating a network-reliability value for the network state of the first peer using the estimated network evaluation information; And
Calculating a peer-reliability value of the first peer from the content-reliability and the network-
≪ / RTI > The method according to claim 1,
The step of calculating the content-
Wherein the content evaluation information includes at least one of the content, the first peer, a second peer receiving the content from the first peer, a score evaluated by the second peer with respect to the content, A method of extracting from an information table. The method according to claim 1,
The step of calculating the network-
Extracting the network evaluation information from the network packet information table including at least one of the first peer, the second peer monitoring the network status of the first peer, and the network packet transmission and reception count information. The method of claim 3,
The network packet transmission and reception frequency information includes a number of times the first peer transmits the control packet and the data packet directly to the second peer; And
Wherein the first peer includes a number of times that the first peer transmits the control packet and the data packet received from the third peer to the second peer. The method according to claim 1,
The step of calculating the content-
Wherein the second peer requests a peer-to-peer value of the first peer when the second peer requests a peer-to-peer value of the first peer in communication with the first peer, And calculating the content-reliability value using the evaluated indirect evaluation value. 6. The method of claim 5,
The step of calculating the content-
Wherein the direct evaluation value and the indirect evaluation value are weighted differently to calculate the content-reliability value. The method according to claim 1,
The step of calculating the network-
Wherein the second peer requests a peer-to-peer value of the first peer when the second peer requests a peer-to-peer value of the first peer in communication with the first peer, And calculating the network-reliability value using the evaluated indirect evaluation value. 8. The method of claim 7,
The step of calculating the network-
And calculating the network-reliability value by weighting the direct evaluation value and the indirect evaluation value. The method according to claim 1,
The step of calculating the peer-
Wherein the content-reliability and the network-reliability value are weighted differently. A method of updating evaluation data used by a node device of a peer-to-peer network to calculate a peer-reliability of a target peer sharing content in the network,
Wherein the evaluation data includes time information for distinguishing the evaluator, the target peer, the evaluation information,
When there is a difference between at least one of the evaluator and the evaluation information between the existing evaluation data and the new evaluation data to be updated as evaluation data for the same target peer, And determining whether to update the evaluation data. 11. The method of claim 10,
Updating the preliminary evaluation data with the new evaluation data when the viewpoint information of the new evaluation data appears more recently than the viewpoint information of the preliminary evaluation data,
And when said viewpoint information of said new evaluation data appears earlier than said viewpoint information of said previous evaluation data.

Images