On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 10:49:18PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 04:24:57PM -0400, Tavin Cole wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 10:08:12PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 11:58:22AM -0700, Scott Miller wrote: > > > > > > > I agree that it may be too strong. Perhaps you should drop it if it > > > > > > exceeds some percentage of the total number of refs. I do like the > > > > > > 'deleting from the top end' though. > > > > > > > > > > Et tu Brute! > > > > Come on, you have to admit its an interesting solution to both traffic > > > > balancing and the ubernode problem. It might also shake up the system a > > > > little by causing entrenched nodes to re-evaluate the routes by having > > > > to find alternate routes for keys going to the most popular route in > > > > their datastore. > > > > > > The percentage thing is too arbitrary, it rubs me the wrong way. > > > > > > My reaction, though, was to both of you presenting these as solutions to > > > the honest cancer issue, given the first rule. > > > > Oh, come on. This is not about "distrusting" a node... > > If you use it as a way to keep a node from fucking with you, then yes it > is.
Naah, this is simply about preventing any node in your routing table from having more references than the other nodes. Which is why I still don't think it's overly strong. Particularly because I value the "shaking up" effect Scott noted. -- # tavin cole # # "Technology is a way of organizing the universe so that # man doesn't have to experience it." # # - Max Frisch _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
