* xor <x...@gmx.li> [2009-05-15 22:07:34]: > On Friday 15 May 2009 20:04:58 Robert Hailey wrote: > > On May 15, 2009, at 11:57 AM, xor wrote: > > > On Friday 15 May 2009 18:37:12 Thomas Sachau wrote: > > >> xor schrieb: > > >>> On Thursday 14 May 2009 19:35:07 Thomas Sachau wrote: > > >>>> Matthew Toseland schrieb: > > >>>>> My observation: Can we get rid of the "I will configure it > > >>>>> manually" > > >>>>> choice? And maybe the welcome page? (#3094) > > >>>> > > >>>> You want to force everyone to use the Wizard? > > >>>> > > >>>>> Because we were both on the same LAN, it did not connect, until > > >>>>> I told > > >>>>> him to set it to allow local addresses on that peer. There > > >>>>> should be a > > >>>>> checkbox when adding a noderef, defaulting to on, "Friend may be > > >>>>> on the > > >>>>> same local network as me" or something. (#3098) > > >>>> > > >>>> This is imho not usual, so i would set this to very low priority > > >>>> and > > >>>> only for advanced mode enabled. > > >>> > > >>> IMHO the current behavior is a "bug" though: We have the MDNS > > >>> plugin, > > >>> which is installed by default and should automatically (opennet-) > > >>> connect > > >>> nodes on a LAN. However it does not work because LAN connections are > > >>> disallowed by default. > > >> > > >> Afaik that plugin is no longer installed by default. > > > > > > Why not? I like the idea of self-organizing Freenet on LANs very > > > much :) > > > > > > Especially if you consider large public or private LANs where two > > > people > > > running Freenet might not even know each others, so they couldn't > > > get manually > > > connected. > > > > Hmmm... but does a node want to advertise that we are running freenet? > > Maybe dependent on the security level setting. > > The more people confess that they are running Freenet, the more difficult it > becomes to blame an individual as guilty for running it. > > Further, if you run opennet, you are screwed anyway, and MDNS is mostly > useful > for Opennet. > > > In either case, a small network would have major issues if it was not > > also connected to the large network, and so I think still that > > automatically detecting locality based on external ip address would > > help (e.g. a node could preferentially keep any opennet peers that it > > finds as being local). > > Wouldn't it take much load off the "internet", i.e. small bandwidth > connections, if any nodes which are connected via LAN used the LAN for > routing > requests if possible? > > I think the LAN could behave like a "single large node", i.e. requests for > data which is stored within the LAN would be answered very fast, and much > data > could be stored if there are many nodes on a LAN. >
The idea is not new, at the beginning bloom-filter sharing was supposed to be for darknet nodes or "local" nodes. There is also a ticket on mantis describing that
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
