No, your still not getting it. The known key values and what nodes they reference too are still functions of the state of the Freenet as a whole, that evolve through the natural process of the growth of the Freenet. The speed of the connections is an external influence, not a function of the Freenet at all.
Now, we cannot claim that Freenet is free from external influences as it stands, for example nodes going down is an external influence that happens because of something totally unrelated to the state of the Freenet (somebody turns off their machine, has a power outage, network issues, or whatever). And since we can't get away from this we have to hope that the natural evolution of the Freenet is not effected badly enough by this that it cannot handle the situation (certainly, there is a level of volatility in the lifetimes of nodes where Freenet simply ceases to function). The same thing goes for trying to way by connection, there _is_ a level where the routing becomes so sheered by differences in connection quality between different nodes that it will not route to the data as we predict it will. Is this level small enough to preclude any level of weighing by connection? I don't know, but to claim that it does not exist is lunacy. This should not be that difficult to understand. On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:12:15PM +0100, Michael ROGERS wrote: > >> If it had to be a function of the key (and only the key) it could not take > >> into account which nodes the node knows about and which nodes it doesn't. > >> A > >> routing algorithm based on the key (and only the key) would require > >> perfect > >> knowledge of the network. > > > >But what nodes the node knows about IS a function of the key. Or rather it > >is a function of the earlier keys requested from this node, which is what > >caused the key to be send to the node in question. > > This is more like it - the routing algorithm is a function of the key plus > the node's knowledge of the network (represented as a set of previously > requested keys and the addresses their values were obtained from). > > Now if the routing algorithm can take into account previously requested > keys, why can't it take into account performance/reliability metrics? This > information is determined by the results of previous requests, so it is > still a function of the previously requested keys. > > >Their is really no such thing as neighbor nodes, and the set of references > >(addresses to other nodes) is not static. But the set of references _is_ a > >function of the keys requested from the node. > > By neighbouring nodes I mean those nodes you know about. They are your > neighbours in the sense that you can reach them in one hop. > > >Freenet assumes that all nodes can communicate. Knoweledge that a node > >exists does not have to do with the physical topology of the network at > >all, if it exists, then the node can know about it. > > Only nodes which know about each other can communicate. So when I talk about > a graph describing the network topology, I mean the freenet topology not the > internet topology - nodes which know about each other are connected by an > edge. (If knowledge can be one-way then it's a directed edge.) > > >> >It is too a function, just not a function of the key value. But then > >> >neither is the quality of the connections (for the two hundreth time). > >> > >> Not a function whose only variable argument is the key, then. Whatever. > > > >Mathematically, "function of key" means "function that has key as a > >variable" and "function of only key" means "function whose only variable > >is key", so you are just repeating what you disagreed with above. > > You're right of course. I think the point that I meant to make was this: you > were saying that the topology was variable (route compression + caching), > but that the routing algorithm was a function of the key, and I was saying > that for the routing algorithm to be a function of the key you had to assume > that everything else (including the topology) was constant. But now that I > realise that you were saying it was a function of the key *plus the node's > knowledge of the network*, my point is redundant. > > > Michael > > _______________________________________________ > Freenet-dev mailing list > Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev > -- \oskar _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
