David Allen <mda at idatar.com> writes: > On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 11:09:06PM +0000, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > Possible solution to the problem that you can see that a request has > > been initiated on a given node: > > Requests can have either HTL, or HTL|P, where P is a number between 0 > > and 1 (this would be limited to a more realistic range by each node it > > passed through). If request only has HTL, it is processed normally. If > > request has HTL|P, there is a P chance that it is forwarded as is, and a > > 1-P chance that it is turned into an HTL only request. > > [...], or would it take, say, 2 random hops and become an HTL 13 > query?
For the latter you'd have to count the random hops, which would render the whole point moot. (The first hop will see that the counter is zero.) > Also, what's the method for changing P with random hops? Life would > suck if I specified a P of 0.9999999999999999 and could get it > honored. Ditto for P=0 See above ... "realistic range" > > So depending on > > the value of P, which can be set at the client end, we have a variable, > > random number of hops before the main HTL starts. This should greatly > > reduce the vulnerability to nodes seeing that requests are at a fixed > > request HTL, Why not make P a constant? Or, on the other hand, do away with HTL and replace it with a forward probability selected by the user? 50%-HTL p 0 0 5 0.87 10 0.933 15 0.955 20 0.966 25 0.973 30 0.977 Hmm, a combination seems better so that one can "guarantee" a minimum number of visited nodes. -- Robbe -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.ng Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20021109/df3f9abd/attachment.pgp>
