Low-Load Distributed Data Networks: Concept, Classification and Comparative Analysis

This article introduces the concept of a low-load distributed data network: a network in which the load on each node (traffic, storage, service state) is bounded by that node's own circle of participants and does not grow as the network grows. We show that the load classifications used in communications theory (utilization, erlangs, the "knee" and "cliff" points on the throughput-versus-load curve, quality-of-service classes) describe the state of a network at a given moment rather than a property of its architecture, and therefore cannot distinguish networks by this trait. We propose six traits of a low-load network and a classification LL-0…LL-3 by the asymptotic load on a node. We compare fifteen networks, from FidoNet (1984) to Nevod (2026), and name their predecessors in the literature: friend-to-friend (F2F) networks, delay-tolerant networks (DTN), distributed hash tables, local-first software and community networks. Keywords: distributed networks, decentralization, per-node load, scalability, F2F, DTN, peer-to-peer networks, messengers, Zero Knowledge Infrastructure.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2026-10-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23621072
Primary Topic
Peer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Low-Load Distributed Data Networks: Concept, Classification and Comparative Analysis

Viktor Kolpakov
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Peer-to-Peer Network Technologies
article

Low-Load Distributed Data Networks: Concept, Classification and Comparative Analysis

Viktor Kolpakov
article en

Abstract

This article introduces the concept of a low-load distributed data network: a network in which the load on each node (traffic, storage, service state) is bounded by that node's own circle of participants and does not grow as the network grows. We show that the load classifications used in communications theory (utilization, erlangs, the "knee" and "cliff" points on the throughput-versus-load curve, quality-of-service classes) describe the state of a network at a given moment rather than a property of its architecture, and therefore cannot distinguish networks by this trait. We propose six traits of a low-load network and a classification LL-0…LL-3 by the asymptotic load on a node. We compare fifteen networks, from FidoNet (1984) to Nevod (2026), and name their predecessors in the literature: friend-to-friend (F2F) networks, delay-tolerant networks (DTN), distributed hash tables, local-first software and community networks. Keywords: distributed networks, decentralization, per-node load, scalability, F2F, DTN, peer-to-peer networks, messengers, Zero Knowledge Infrastructure.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
Peer-to-Peer Network Technologies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon