On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 08:34:07PM -0400, Andrew Rodland wrote: > On Friday 29 August 2003 08:30 pm, Toad wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 05:18:06PM -0700, Tracy R Reed wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 11:45:19PM -0400, Andrew Rodland spake thusly: > > > > What this is, is an idea for decreasing the number of nodes that data > > > > passes through on freenet, and so also freenet's bandwidth usage. It > > > > would not be a compatible change, but it's just an idea. :) > > > > > > There is a very good reason for passing through so many nodes. It makes > > > the requester and the source of the data harder to track down. > > > Shortcutting as you propose it would reveal the identify of the > > > requesting node which totally defeats what freenet is all about. Plus > > > returning the data back along the same path helps propagate good routing > > > info and lets the nodes along the path know that the data was found so > > > they can route similar requests back along this path. Ideally we want the > > > data to pass through as many nodes as possible with the user still > > > getting his result in a reasonable amount of time. > > > > It gets cached too. Probabilistically, of course. > > I already mentioned that in the original post. Caching is not really a > problem. Routing appears to be, though.
Caching is an integral part of routing. > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
