On Tuesday 20 May 2008 15:23, Michael Rogers wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > Hmmm, I thought you were arguing that the latency would be unacceptable
for a
> > message board system?
>
> I was arguing that you couldn't mix ten-second latency with ten-day
> latency in the same system. Usenet
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Hmmm, I thought you were arguing that the latency would be unacceptable for a
> message board system?
I was arguing that you couldn't mix ten-second latency with ten-day
latency in the same system. Usenet messages used to take several days to
reach the furthest
Matthew Toseland wrote:
Hmmm, I thought you were arguing that the latency would be unacceptable for a
message board system?
I was arguing that you couldn't mix ten-second latency with ten-day
latency in the same system. Usenet messages used to take several days to
reach the furthest corners
On Tuesday 20 May 2008 15:23, Michael Rogers wrote:
Matthew Toseland wrote:
Hmmm, I thought you were arguing that the latency would be unacceptable
for a
message board system?
I was arguing that you couldn't mix ten-second latency with ten-day
latency in the same system. Usenet
On Monday 19 May 2008 20:26, Michael Rogers wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >> Who says we need 8 GB per exchange for it to be viable? Seems to me that
> >> even a few megabytes a day would be useful in a lot of places (or a few
> >> kilobytes if you can choose which channels to participate
Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> Who says we need 8 GB per exchange for it to be viable? Seems to me that
>> even a few megabytes a day would be useful in a lot of places (or a few
>> kilobytes if you can choose which channels to participate in).
>
> Only if it's a broadcast system, and like I said,
Matthew Toseland wrote:
Who says we need 8 GB per exchange for it to be viable? Seems to me that
even a few megabytes a day would be useful in a lot of places (or a few
kilobytes if you can choose which channels to participate in).
Only if it's a broadcast system, and like I said, they can
On Monday 19 May 2008 20:26, Michael Rogers wrote:
Matthew Toseland wrote:
Who says we need 8 GB per exchange for it to be viable? Seems to me that
even a few megabytes a day would be useful in a lot of places (or a few
kilobytes if you can choose which channels to participate in).
On Thursday 15 May 2008 21:28, Michael Rogers wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >> Bluetooth?
> >
> > Even less bandwidth than wifi, no? We need several gigabits (over a range
> > measured in feet) for it to be viable.
>
> Who says we need 8 GB per exchange for it to be viable? Seems to me
On Thursday 15 May 2008 21:28, Michael Rogers wrote:
Matthew Toseland wrote:
Bluetooth?
Even less bandwidth than wifi, no? We need several gigabits (over a range
measured in feet) for it to be viable.
Who says we need 8 GB per exchange for it to be viable? Seems to me that
even a
Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> Bluetooth?
>
> Even less bandwidth than wifi, no? We need several gigabits (over a range
> measured in feet) for it to be viable.
Who says we need 8 GB per exchange for it to be viable? Seems to me that
even a few megabytes a day would be useful in a lot of places
Matthew Toseland wrote:
Bluetooth?
Even less bandwidth than wifi, no? We need several gigabits (over a range
measured in feet) for it to be viable.
Who says we need 8 GB per exchange for it to be viable? Seems to me that
even a few megabytes a day would be useful in a lot of places (or a
On Tuesday 13 May 2008 00:24, Evan Daniel wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Matthew Toseland
> > >> 2. Most or all Freenet apps assume a few seconds latency on requests
> > >> (Frost, Fproxy, etc), yet the latency with the
On Tuesday 13 May 2008 00:44, Michael Rogers wrote:
> Evan Daniel wrote:
> > The major change needed would be a way to request not the specific SSK
> > block, but the SSK, whatever CHK it happens to redirect to, and any
> > CHK blocks needed to decode the result
>
> Exactly, so you'd need a
On Monday 12 May 2008 23:56, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Matthew Toseland
> wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 May 2008 17:33, Ian Clarke wrote:
> >> I see a simple scenario where a "sneakernet" would be useful is in a
> >> situation like Burma or Tibet where stuff is happening,
On Monday 12 May 2008 23:56, Michael Rogers wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >> 1. The platform for this type of thing is a small mobile device,
> >> getting Freenet to work well on an iPhone would be a world of pain -
> >> and doesn't buy anything for us
> >
> > No, to do that requires a
On Monday 12 May 2008 23:28, Michael Rogers wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > Hence request priorities, so that the requests for the top blocks go over
the
> > UDP connections.
>
> Are you assuming that every sneakernet connection will be backed up by
> an internet connection?
No, it's
Evan Daniel wrote:
> The major change needed would be a way to request not the specific SSK
> block, but the SSK, whatever CHK it happens to redirect to, and any
> CHK blocks needed to decode the result
Exactly, so you'd need a different protocol, different data formats and
a different routing
Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> 1. The platform for this type of thing is a small mobile device,
>> getting Freenet to work well on an iPhone would be a world of pain -
>> and doesn't buy anything for us
>
> No, to do that requires a massive amount of short range bandwidth. Phones do
> not have this.
Evan Daniel wrote:
> I think flood routing inserts opportunistically is a good idea --
> there's no point in sending out a memory card less than full, and
> routed requests / inserts may well not be enough to fill it.
My knee-jerk reaction was "flooding doesn't scale", but it's actually
worked
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Hence request priorities, so that the requests for the top blocks go over the
> UDP connections.
Are you assuming that every sneakernet connection will be backed up by
an internet connection?
> So the routing code
> could be very similar to the current code, but we
On Monday 12 May 2008 23:28, Michael Rogers wrote:
Matthew Toseland wrote:
Hence request priorities, so that the requests for the top blocks go over
the
UDP connections.
Are you assuming that every sneakernet connection will be backed up by
an internet connection?
No, it's merely an
On Monday 12 May 2008 23:56, Michael Rogers wrote:
Matthew Toseland wrote:
1. The platform for this type of thing is a small mobile device,
getting Freenet to work well on an iPhone would be a world of pain -
and doesn't buy anything for us
No, to do that requires a massive amount of
On Monday 12 May 2008 23:56, Ian Clarke wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 10 May 2008 17:33, Ian Clarke wrote:
I see a simple scenario where a sneakernet would be useful is in a
situation like Burma or Tibet where stuff is
On Tuesday 13 May 2008 00:44, Michael Rogers wrote:
Evan Daniel wrote:
The major change needed would be a way to request not the specific SSK
block, but the SSK, whatever CHK it happens to redirect to, and any
CHK blocks needed to decode the result
Exactly, so you'd need a different
On Tuesday 13 May 2008 00:24, Evan Daniel wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Matthew Toseland
2. Most or all Freenet apps assume a few seconds latency on requests
(Frost, Fproxy, etc), yet the latency with the
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Matthew Toseland
> >> 2. Most or all Freenet apps assume a few seconds latency on requests
> >> (Frost, Fproxy, etc), yet the latency with the sneakernet would be
> >> measured in days. Freenet's existing
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Michael Rogers
wrote:
> Evan Daniel wrote:
>
> > I think flood routing inserts opportunistically is a good idea --
> > there's no point in sending out a memory card less than full, and
> > routed requests / inserts may well not be enough to fill it.
> >
>
> My
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Saturday 10 May 2008 17:33, Ian Clarke wrote:
>> I see a simple scenario where a "sneakernet" would be useful is in a
>> situation like Burma or Tibet where stuff is happening, possibly a
>> political crack-down, and the authorities
On Saturday 10 May 2008 20:53, Evan Daniel wrote:
> On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Ian Clarke wrote:
> >> Ian is of the view that this should be a separate application based on
similar
> >> principles to Freenet. I'm not. We agree that there are some significant
> >> issues to deal with. I am
On Saturday 10 May 2008 17:33, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > Ian is of the view that this should be a separate application based on
similar
> > principles to Freenet. I'm not. We agree that there are some significant
> > issues to deal with. I am of the view that these networks are mutually
> >
On Saturday 10 May 2008 15:57, Michael Rogers wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > We could implement darknet sneakernet connections by exchanging USB
sticks.
> > E.g. if you meet somebody every day (e.g. a coworker), you could exchange
> > (cheap) 8G sticks, plug them in overnight, and then do
On Saturday 10 May 2008 15:57, Michael Rogers wrote:
Matthew Toseland wrote:
We could implement darknet sneakernet connections by exchanging USB
sticks.
E.g. if you meet somebody every day (e.g. a coworker), you could exchange
(cheap) 8G sticks, plug them in overnight, and then do the
Matthew Toseland wrote:
Hence request priorities, so that the requests for the top blocks go over the
UDP connections.
Are you assuming that every sneakernet connection will be backed up by
an internet connection?
So the routing code
could be very similar to the current code, but we would
Evan Daniel wrote:
I think flood routing inserts opportunistically is a good idea --
there's no point in sending out a memory card less than full, and
routed requests / inserts may well not be enough to fill it.
My knee-jerk reaction was flooding doesn't scale, but it's actually
worked
Matthew Toseland wrote:
1. The platform for this type of thing is a small mobile device,
getting Freenet to work well on an iPhone would be a world of pain -
and doesn't buy anything for us
No, to do that requires a massive amount of short range bandwidth. Phones do
not have this.
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 10 May 2008 17:33, Ian Clarke wrote:
I see a simple scenario where a sneakernet would be useful is in a
situation like Burma or Tibet where stuff is happening, possibly a
political crack-down, and the
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Michael Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Evan Daniel wrote:
I think flood routing inserts opportunistically is a good idea --
there's no point in sending out a memory card less than full, and
routed requests / inserts may well not be enough to fill it.
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Matthew Toseland
2. Most or all Freenet apps assume a few seconds latency on requests
(Frost, Fproxy, etc), yet the latency with the sneakernet would be
measured in days. Freenet's
Evan Daniel wrote:
The major change needed would be a way to request not the specific SSK
block, but the SSK, whatever CHK it happens to redirect to, and any
CHK blocks needed to decode the result
Exactly, so you'd need a different protocol, different data formats and
a different routing
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> We could implement darknet sneakernet connections by exchanging USB sticks.
> E.g. if you meet somebody every day (e.g. a coworker), you could exchange
> (cheap) 8G sticks, plug them in overnight, and then do the same again the
> next day. This would produce approx
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Ian Clarke wrote:
>> Ian is of the view that this should be a separate application based on
>> similar
>> principles to Freenet. I'm not. We agree that there are some significant
>> issues to deal with. I am of the view that these networks are mutually
>>
> Ian is of the view that this should be a separate application based on similar
> principles to Freenet. I'm not. We agree that there are some significant
> issues to deal with. I am of the view that these networks are mutually
> complementary and therefore should talk to each other
I think the
Matthew Toseland wrote:
We could implement darknet sneakernet connections by exchanging USB sticks.
E.g. if you meet somebody every day (e.g. a coworker), you could exchange
(cheap) 8G sticks, plug them in overnight, and then do the same again the
next day. This would produce approx
Ian is of the view that this should be a separate application based on similar
principles to Freenet. I'm not. We agree that there are some significant
issues to deal with. I am of the view that these networks are mutually
complementary and therefore should talk to each other
I think the
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian is of the view that this should be a separate application based on
similar
principles to Freenet. I'm not. We agree that there are some significant
issues to deal with. I am of the view that these networks are mutually
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 2:58 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Thursday 08 May 2008 01:41, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=2345
>>
>> ---
>> A typical domestic internet connection has at most 1Mbps uplink. In some
>> megacities 100Mbps or even 1Gbps is
On Friday 09 May 2008 01:23, Daniel Cheng wrote:
> On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 2:58 AM, Matthew Toseland
> wrote:
> > On Thursday 08 May 2008 01:41, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >> https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=2345
> >>
> >> ---
> >> A typical domestic internet connection has at most 1Mbps
On Thursday 08 May 2008 01:41, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=2345
>
> ---
> A typical domestic internet connection has at most 1Mbps uplink. In some
> megacities 100Mbps or even 1Gbps is available (symmetric), however it is
> unlikely that the bandwidth
https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=2345
---
A typical domestic internet connection has at most 1Mbps uplink. In some
megacities 100Mbps or even 1Gbps is available (symmetric), however it is
unlikely that the bandwidth available in most homes will exceed a few
megabits in the near
On Thursday 08 May 2008 01:41, Matthew Toseland wrote:
https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=2345
---
A typical domestic internet connection has at most 1Mbps uplink. In some
megacities 100Mbps or even 1Gbps is available (symmetric), however it is
unlikely that the bandwidth
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 2:58 AM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 08 May 2008 01:41, Matthew Toseland wrote:
https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=2345
---
A typical domestic internet connection has at most 1Mbps uplink. In some
megacities 100Mbps or even 1Gbps is
On Friday 09 May 2008 01:23, Daniel Cheng wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 2:58 AM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 08 May 2008 01:41, Matthew Toseland wrote:
https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=2345
---
A typical domestic internet connection has at most
https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=2345
---
A typical domestic internet connection has at most 1Mbps uplink. In some
megacities 100Mbps or even 1Gbps is available (symmetric), however it is
unlikely that the bandwidth available in most homes will exceed a few
megabits in the near
54 matches
Mail list logo
