I've only been skimming this thread, so excuse me if this is a bit off-base.
(1) I have noticed a reference to "not routing inserts to new nodes" (wrt MAST). I have recently required such a decision (asto if a node is "new"), so I think a core idea of node veterancy is a good idea... and if it does not effect the routing of "GET" requests (which lets them earn a veteran status), I don't think that modifying the routing for INSERTs would have any negative effect. It's basically just saying that INSERTs must go into the "known good" network. (2) I'm no longer so quick to presume that "paying for opennet will make it faster". Unless, that is, we have evidence to indicate the network *IS CURRENTLY* under a Sybil attack. Common-sensically, wouldn't presenting a barrier to entry make things slower? Whereas I recall the consensus (or... uncontested statement from Matthew) being that the primary cause for network slowness being the inability to find data, it may be good to consider: (3) refusing (or heavily metering?) new connections from any FOAF. If done well, this might help MAST, but I see this being primarily a network acceleration... because I theorize that (apart from data being inserted into transient nodes), the primary cause for request failure would be "over-connectedness"... that the current pattern generates a huge number of three-node-triangles (A-B-C-A), that kill requests as they approach their destination (via HTL exhaustion). (4) protecting (that is, not replacing) the "nearest veteran node" on either side of our location. This is effectively what the simulators do, as a ring topology is somewhat ideal. As I see it, this would assure that the network has at least one valid and findable route to every part of the address space. I'd love to hear any thoughts on these. -- Robert Hailey _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
