On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 02:52:39PM -0500, Tavin Cole wrote: > On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 06:58:51PM +0100, Oskar Sandberg wrote: < > > > I agree with thelema here - clearly the routing table is adaptive > > already, there is no need to make the CP include all reasons to avoid a > > node. Specifically, the CP is good for temporary errors that can be > > recovered from suddenly, while an overloaded node (for example) > > indicates a constant problem. > > The way Gianni has done the routing table, CP is really being used to > store long-term information about the node, while the other factors > (failure intervals, failures per interval, interval timeouts, masking > effects) are used to deal with temporary network errors.
Then the CP ought to go. -- Oskar Sandberg oskar at freenetproject.org _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
