On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 11:48:13AM -0600, Edgar Friendly wrote: > Ken Corson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Edgar Friendly wrote: > > > > Okay, this is only regarding Q's and QR's , but what if the sending > > node included a 2 or 4 byte QueryID value ? This would be a simple > > counter, but the value would be unique between that pair of peers. > > Then, when it came time to respond to the query (with a QR for ex) > > the receiver of the query could just send back the small ID value. > > I don't think this would impose much coding effort. I'm not opposed > > to using compression, but how does this idea compare ? > > > > Ken > > Every routed request already has a UniqueID; why would we make up a > new ID system just for QRs? Currently, QRs are between 80 and 100 > bytes, I plan on having them down to 12 bytes. Dropping to a 2 byte > QueryID value would make QRs 6 bytes, but at these sizes, packet > overhead is going to dominate anyway, so there's no real benefit in a > smaller QueryID. I'm not sure that packet overhead won't make my > changes useless, but I'm willing to try and find out. If you want to > pitch in, feel free to start hacking on fred.
I make it 17... you are missing out any field specifiers? Typical QR: QueryRejected HopsToLive=8 Reason=Node overloaded Attenuation=1 UniqueID=5059d54c3cd2b593 EndMessage > > Thelema > -- > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Raabu and Piisu > GPG 1024D/36352AAB fpr:756D F615 B4F3 BFFC 02C7 84B7 D8D7 6ECE 3635 2AAB -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
