Toad wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 06:04:44PM +0000, Ian Clarke wrote: What happens if somebody comes to us with a feature gift of an IPv6 transport and the infrastructure to use multiple transports? Unless we have this conversation now we'd probably accept it.
Ok, so your argument is that Freenet has no cast-iron defense against someone spoofing multiple IP addresses to get-around our load-balancing mechanism. Big fscking deal! What is our cast iron defense against someone setting a very small datastore and leaching from the network? Has our lack of one hurt us? Should we have waited until we have one before we let anyone use Freenet?
Please explain what the oh-so-terrible thing that a *normal user* could realistically do even if they controlled thousands of IP addresses, and please remind us of why this thing is so terrible that it justifies making our users continue to suffer from the lack of an effective load balancing mechanism?
Ian, I see your point: You just want it to work. That's valid. And you're right to say that we could always come back later to address problems that arise.
But, shouldn't we *first* consider ideas which won't have these additional vulnerabilities? My "public quotas" idea (which is a modification of your quota idea) is an example. I think it might solve the problem, and I haven't heard any response to that idea.
-Martin
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
