On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 07:02:46PM +0100, Toad wrote: > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 11:40:18AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > > If my memory serves me correctly, we currently select the first step in > > routing at random as a security measure. > > > > Translating this over to NGrouting, I suggest that for the first hop in > > a request, instead of using the RTE to estimate the per-key request time > > estimate, we use a random number between the minimum and maximum points > > in the RTE for that node. > > > > This introduces randomness into the first step - but without ignoring > > other issues such as connection failures, QRs, and DNF liklihoods. > > Could you elaborate slightly here? Can't we simply route to a random > key, like we do now? That should take into account QRs, connection > failures and so on.
Yeah, I am not really sure whether I like the whole idea of random-first-step routing anyway. If NG routing is really good at routing requests, then the recepient of a randomly routed request might be able to distinguish it from a request routed from a node that is trying hard - this could be a threat to anonymity. I say get rid of the randomly routed request thing, if someone makes a good argument to put it back in then we will. Ian. -- Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Coordinator, The Freenet Project http://freenetproject.org/ Founder, Locutus http://locut.us/ Personal Homepage http://locut.us/ian/
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
