On Sun, Jun 23, 2002 at 06:00:31PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > I have been asked to forward the following message to the list as the > author wishes to remain anonymous. Do we allow HTL=0 from external nodes? If so, why? Aren't there anonymity concerns? > > Hello - I wonder if you could submit this message to the dev list for > discussion? Given my current circumstances, anonymity is my preferred > mode for communication. Thanks very much. > > Greetings. As a newcomer to Freenet I am excited by its possibilities > but discouraged by its apparent difficulties. > > Here is a possibly dumb idea for a "silver bullet" that could help with > the overloaded condition. It may be stupid, but is it stupid enough to > be right? > > In some sense, overload is a self-perpetuating state. A node cannot > respond to messages if all the nodes it is querying are not responding. > So each node stops responding since there is nothing it can do. > > However of course there are certain messages it can deal with: those > with HTL=0. It would not be forwarding those anyway, so it could respond > to those right away no matter how badly overloaded the other nodes are. > > So we could give HTL=0 messages priority so that they are handled first. > This would help slightly. > > Then there are HTL=1 messages. These will typically require forwarding. > And if we have made the above change, then when we decrement the HTL > to 0 and forward them, the other nodes will respond even if they are > overloaded. So we can handle HTL=1 messages reasonably well, and they > should have a relatively high priority. > > You can see where I am going with this. Messages should be handled > in priority inversely to HTL. HTL=0 messages should always be handled > immediately. HTL=1 should be handled with high priority. HTL=2 with > somewhat less, and so on. > > This would have the beneficial side effect of penalizing people who send > in messages with too high HTL, which hurt the network by making it into > a flat, unspecialized broadcast network. > > The problem with the idea is that it's not clear how to put a priority > system on top of what is essentially a first come, first served model. > However it seems that most nodes are not operating in that state now, > but are rejecting almost all messages. If we are in the state where we > are rejecting messages because of "overload", let us never reject HTL=0 > and reduce the chances of rejecting low HTL messages proportionately to > the HTL value. > > This could help drain the network of backed-up messages and deadlocked > loops and could free things up to a significant degree. Maybe it's > worth a try? > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > -- > Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Founder & Coordinator, The Freenet Project http://freenetproject.org/ > Chief Technology Officer, Uprizer Inc. http://www.uprizer.com/ > Personal Homepage http://locut.us/ > > _______________________________________________ > devl mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl >
msg03326/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
