> -----Original Message----- > From: Niklas Bergh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 4:49 PM > To: 'Discussion of development issues' > Subject: RE: Re[2]: [freenet-dev] black hole report > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Costas Dokolas > > Sent: den 4 december 2003 15:31 > > To: Discussion of development issues > > Subject: RE: Re[2]: [freenet-dev] black hole report > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Niklas Bergh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 4:03 PM > > > To: 'Discussion of development issues' > > > Subject: RE: Re[2]: [freenet-dev] black hole report > > > > > > > > > > - What could be the benefits of "routing-only" nodes? (i.e. > > > > low storage space, assuming they are on very fast > > > > connections) Perhaps extra anonymity for the network? > > > > > > A big problem here is that data still has to pass through > > the routing > > > nodes.. Routing nodes has to update their routing table, > > right? And in > > > order to update their routingtables correctly they have to > > verify any > > > data sent from their routing destination nodes. Same > problem as in > > > path folding, there is a need for some kind of alternative > > > verification method. > > > > I don't quite get it... > > > > You mean that we need to keep transient data in order to > > verify the CHK upon d/l completion? (and then some more until > > the requesting node receives it, of course) > > It is verified on the fly really but you have got it right. > > > If you mean that, I was under the impression that we use temp > > space for that anyway. On the other hand, I'm not dismissing > > storage altogether, I only mean that it could be a of a size > > enough for this kind of routing. In that respect, we don't > > even need a store size limit, just a way to always delete > > data after we're done forwarding it. > > Every single data item that is cached by the (almost) > routing-only node > will relieve one or more other nodes of sending that particular item. > Hence, the more cache on a node, the better for the network, > always.. As > it is now. > > What I meant was that the only way a non-storage routing node can be > really useful to the network if it allows the requestor and > the located > datasource to transfer the data directly between themselves.. And that > process is as far as I understand called path-folding. > > But the problem with this is that the routing node still has to verify > that the datasource really had the data it said it had in order to > reward that node in its rt. Because of that some kind of verification > mechanism which doesn't involve access to the actual data has to be > conjured up before routing-only nodes can be useful. > > Clearer now?
Yeah, but... Why fold? I mean, isn't there real value for a node (many nodes if possible) that knows a lot about where to find data and who's best to get it from at the mere expense of a hop? On that area, isn't there value for any node (i.e. normal node) to know of more possibilities of where to find a piece of data? Folding is only needed if the routing-only node is too slow (i.e. overloaded) to do the transfer itself, and I believe there are people (and non-people, i.e. institutions) willing to donate bandwidth much more than space, especially considering legal implications of actually storing info, whether they know anything about it or not! I'm only getting into this line of questioning (besides personally liking Socrates' style of getting somewhere with Q&A; I don't know the English word for it) because routing, which is basically a "who has the data?" in combination with "how can I get it ASAP?", is the problem du jour. Consider the following (maybe stupid): Until now, we assumed that a node passing info (or having just dropped a piece of info) need only keep a reference to the node it got it from. Does it still work that way? What if it also keeps a reference to the node it passed the info to? Isn't that a possible future source for the info? What if it keeps references to all nodes it got the info from and passed it to? That would work only for well connected nodes, and probably only if the info was close enough to its specialization to get more requests for it, but then again, it would hang on to the data, but consider instead the routing-only node... l8r, Doc _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
