On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 05:18:14PM +0200, Costas Dokolas wrote: > > -----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...
It's a tradeoff between availability and specialization. The node that made the request will probably be less specialized than the one that served it - and we have no reason to trust them; it's a trust issue really. Nodes are in our routing table because we trust them, because they have served requests successfuly. > > l8r, > > Doc > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl -- 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
