Counting throughput and latency would be better, but still, if an IP matches the first 24 bits, it's a pretty darn good bet that it'll be faster than one matching 4.
Oksar, I'll see what data I can dig up without digging into the Freenet code too much (I'm not a Java coder) -----Original Message----- From: Are <[email protected]> To: Freenet Devl List <devl at freenetproject.org> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 07:17:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [freenet-devl] Geographical routing Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 02:19:29 +0100 (CET) > Why not just send a ping to every node and count the number of hops to > them? > > I guess this wont happen untill 0.9 or something, but if it were to > happen > I think you would have to use two different systems. One for CP and one > for Performance. So each node has a CP and a Performance number. So if > the > node has reliable routing you would favor the nodes with good > Performance, > if the node experiences many failed connects it would favor nodes with > good CP.. > > The Performance number should be based on Latency, average throughput > and > maximum throughput. The thoughput and latency numbers should be scaled > in > % against the best throughput / latency found. > > Just my 200 Lire. _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
