On 8/15/06, Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Because in many cases the network we provide it with is not a single small world network (which is what it is designed for), but two loosely connected small world networks of different parameters.
It seems likely to me that interest in content will closely match connectedness of the networks -- content created on the chinese network will be of interest on the western network to a degree approximately proportional to the interconnectedness of those networks. So bottlenecks in the topology are present only in places where they aren't a problem. Obviously I have no proof of this, but it seems at least as intuitive to me as the assumption that there will be a pair of loosely connected networks in such a way as to create a bottleneck. I think it is inappropriate to spend time or effort worrying about this problem until we have both a method to simulate the network in question and a set of load balancing / routing algorithms that work on a "single" network that we can test on a split network. The only counter argument to this that I can see is if there is obvious reason to believe that decisions made without worrying about this possibility will be actively problematic later in the development process, and that seems unlikely in the extreme to me. And lastly, why shouldn't the "split" network be small-world? By small world I assume you mean the triangle property holds, ie if a and b are connected, and b and c are too, then there is a significantly increased probability of a and c being connected. Is there some reason to believe that this property fails as soon as national / cultural borders get in the way? I can see there being bottlenecks, but I don't see how that precludes the small-world nature of the network. Evan _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
