On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 10:05:32AM -0700, Scott Miller wrote:
> > This makes a lot of sense if you think about the equilibrium situation
> > we want to achieve, where no node in the routing table is allowed to
> > have a ridiculously large number of refs (i.e., be an ubernode). It's
> > also an elegant way to address the "honest cancer" attack, where a node
> > resets the DataSource to itself more than it should to attract refs.
> >
> > I've mentioned this to a couple people and the general reaction is that
> > the approach is "too strong." Maybe so. One compromise would be to
> > only drop the "top dog" if the number of refs owned by that node exceeds
> > maxRefs/maxNodes.
> I agree that it may be too strong. Perhaps you should drop it if it
> exceeds some percentage of the total number of refs. I do like the
> 'deleting from the top end' though.
Et tu Brute!
--
'DeCSS would be fine. Where is it?'
'Here,' Montag touched his head.
'Ah,' Granger smiled and nodded.
Oskar Sandberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
