On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Peter Todd wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 01:10:51PM -0700, Mr. Bad wrote: > > <thinking> This is no defense against such an attack, as I just > pointed out you can run an unlimited number of virtual servers on > different ports/ip addresses. > > Still I think nodes should be setup such that no more then %10 of the > references should point to any one node for fault tolerence. I've seen > nodes go kaboom when the one node they referenced died.
The problem is not that there's too many references to nodes. I think it's perfectly reasonable that you keep track of as much data about a node as you can, if it helps routing and doesn't harm anonymity. The problem is the way we decide to route based on the collection of references. At the moment, if your node has a lot of references, that makes it more likely to be routed to. This is the problem. Throwing away data about what nodes have isn't a very good solution. But how you act based on that data is a much better solution. Thelema -- E-mail: thelema314 at bigfoot.com If you love something, set it free. GPG 1536g/B9C5D1F7 fpr:075A A3F7 F70B 1397 345D A67E 70AA 820B A806 F95D -------------- 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/20010618/f0df0cfb/attachment.pgp>
