> > > By file splitting, we meant that there would be a mandatory chunk sizes > > for files such as 16k, 32k, 64k, 128k, and 256k or perhaps higher. Files > > would be padded so that they fit a given chunk size. Your proposal would > > have some might have some routing problems too, I think. > > Having a fixed chunk-size worries me as it imposes an arbitrary > restriction - why a fixed size, why not just leave it up to the client > (it would be in the client's interest not to make it too big as then it > might not get stored anywhere)? The fixed size restriction meant that you had to pick one size out of a set of possible chunk sizes. This is partially to defeat file-size matching attacks.
-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20000727/0cd9ec62/attachment.pgp>
