On Wed, 10/15/03 at 19:31:22 +0100, Toad wrote: > On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 01:26:34PM -0500, Brandon Low wrote: > > That sounds like a pretty good idea overall, things to consider: > > -How long does the rejection last? Sometimes a node (mine for instance) > > gets locked up for unknown reasons, but will be back and fully > > functional within 5 minutes, if we start rejecting all queries from a > > node we should make sure we allow again when it becomes contactable (or > > remove it from the deny list once all connections to it close)... a bit > > complex. > > Initially I am assuming that the node has NEVER been successfully > contacted, despite several attempts... we will continue trying to > contact it. I'm not absolutely sure how this would interact with > message queueing - if we have tried to contact it, we've wanted to send > something to it, so presumably we accepted a request at some point. > That was exactly the thought process I went through... how do we know to keep trying to contact the node if we don't accept requests...
> > -How does this change effect overall success rates? Sometimes a node > > may be firewalled (accidentally or on purpose) but have worthwhile data > > that we can eventually get from them via the connections the open to us. > > There is an argument that such behaviour is malicious. It certainly is > not conducive to path folding, which remains an important mechanism... > However, "hostile environment" nodes would operate in exactly that > manner, so maybe we should accept requests from nodes in our routing > table as long as they keep adequate connections open to us. > > That's not a bad idea... accept requests from the node _until_ we start queueing and trying to open connections but failing, drop requests until a connection becomes free or the other node opens another connection. --Brandon _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
