On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 04:23:52PM -0500, Tom Kaitchuck wrote: > 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.
Standardization is almost always easier said than done, and this really overlooks major differences between the theory behind these network's operations. Freenet uses a heuristic routing model - if you want a standardized way to build a heuristic P2P network with Freenet's qualities then congratulations, you already have one, its called Freenet! If you expect to find a common standard which encompasses heuristic and non-heuristic P2P networks with a variety of different goals then congratulations too, it already exists, its called TCP/IP. > There are a lot of things that are easy to reach a general consensis on. > (Encryption / routing etc.) Erm, no, encryption and routing are far from easy to reach a general consensus on since the encryption requirements will vary depending on the system's goals, and if everyone used the same routing algorithm then everyone would basically be building the same P2P network. The routing algorithm is the most distinguishing feature of any P2P network. > However it might be nice to have files that did not need to be part of the > data store, like in GnuNet. You clearly have no clue about how Freenet's routing algorithm works if you don't understand why this wouldn't work for us. These P2P networks work in different ways because they have different goals and requirements. JXTA started with the vague goal of standardizing P2P networks and look what became of it. > 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. Dont forget the perpectual motion machine, it would be great if we had a perpectual motion machine! > 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. Keep dreaming :-) Ian. -- Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Coordinator, The Freenet Project http://freenetproject.org/ Weblog http://slashdot.org/~sanity/journal
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
