> On July 3, 2003 03:11 pm, Ian Clarke wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:46:39PM -0500, Tom Kaitchuck wrote: > > > On Thursday 03 July 2003 01:40 pm, Ian Clarke wrote: > > > > step in routing at random as a security measure. > > > > > > Forgive my ignorance, but how does this provide security? > > It means a node cannot set itself up to alway respond yes and > hense become the one place that gets requests... > > > Well, I wasn't incredibly happy about the idea when I first > heard it - > > but it does make it more difficult to deduce whether the person you > > just got a request from was the originator of that request - and it > > encourages more diverse probing of nodes in the RT. > > > > Personally I think we could live without it. > > I am not so sure about that. Think the bonus is that we > query more nodes allowing us to actually learn about the > network. Suspect, without this, routing would find a couple > of nodes that work OK and route all messages to them. >
This sounds quite similar to the technique used in evoloutionary algorithms to not get stuck at 'local optima', aka Mutation. Adding a slight chance that you veer of in a totally unexpected direction might lead you to find an even better spot than the current one. /N _______________________________________________ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
