--- Tom Kaitchuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have tried Freenet, Grapevine, Entropy, GunNet,
> and even Chord. Although I
> don't know the details of all their implementations,
> they are all good. So in
> effect, all three projects suffer form not doing one
> thing that the others
> do, and not having a large network.
>
> I think all three projects could benefit if a single
> suffocation could be
> produced that all three could work towards, that
> would allow the networks to
> interoperate.
Yeah, I've been daydreaming about this. If the
different networks could handle each other's data,
people would be free to use thier own
routing/connectivity. Also it might be possible to
have different versions of freenet being tested in
their own subnetwork, but still being live.
> There are a lot of things that are easy to reach a
> general consensis on.
> (Encryption / routing etc.) Then for splitfiles FEC
> is the logical choice,
> because it is much more sophisticated then anything
> the other projects use.
> However it might be nice to have files that did not
> need to be part of the
> data store, like in GnuNet.
I think Freenet's HSK,KSK, and SSK may become a
standard. Entropy is evidence of this.
> However the hard part would be comming up with a
> standard for communications
> and metadata. Ideally the protocol would not care
> about firewalls / nats and
> utilize the underlying network as best as possible.
> I understand Jrand0m has
> some ideas in this aria. One would probably want to
> include some sort of
> simplistic search and flooding resistance, borrowed
> form GnuNet, and TUKs
> included in the metadata ala Grapevine.
Yeah, it does seem hard. If Jrand0m or anyone else
has ideas I'd be interested.
> If someone could even produce a preliminary outline
> of what this should look
> like and submit it to the other projects, I'm sure
> they would cooperate and
> try to come up with improvements. The important
> thing to remember is this is
> not just 'Here's how we do it', but rather an ideal
> network, even if it
> contains elements that you don't know how to
> implement yet.
Convincing other people may be hard too.
I've got an idea that would work for small
experiemntal networks with just a few nodes. Maybe
they could emulate a single super freenet node. In
other words let freenet be the "Mother Network".
Say I've got 100 test nodes, and it takes 1 or 2 hops
to get to data. Could I give them all the same NodeId
and rotate the IP around when introducing myself?
This would let the network learn our specialization
just once. I could use the subnetwork as a giant
datastore and be free to experiment with whatever
routing I choose.
The problem is that this doesn't scale. If freenet
wanted to merge with equally sized networks, I think
you'd have to keep track on request/post messages
which networks have already gotten the message. So
for example an insert might have flags for {freenet,
Grapevine, Entropy, GunNet, Freenet-China, MNet, ect}
and so that it doesn't get inserted into the same
network repeatedly.
Does anyone else what to take a shot at this?
__________________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Logos und Klingelt�ne f�rs Handy bei http://sms.yahoo.de
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
