Greetings, I was just wondering if Ian and others feel that multi-area specialization is a requirement for Freenet to work (i.e. stems from a conscious design decision) or just something that is a consequence of the current Freenet implementation.
It seems to me that Freenet could be designed to work either way and having one dynamic keyspace specialization might simplify routing quite a bit; maybe even enough to make it more reliable while retaining its anonymity. There is also a line to be drawn between first party specialization (what the node itself tries to specialize in via selective caching) and third party specialization (what other nodes think another node's specialty is and attempting to reinforce that via more requests and inserts to that node). Just trying to get some discussion going on which is better for Freenet's future. Michael > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ian Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 2:55 AM >Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] RNFs on insert > > > >>Not to nitpick - but I have always been somewhat uncomfortable about >>assuming a single area of specialization for a node. In many >>simulations I have seen, nodes will frequently specialize in two or more >>areas. >> >> > > _______________________________________________ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
