Anonymous (mtoseland at cableinet.co.uk) wrote: > nope, I'm thinking about a gateway/router node that is static both for > internal and external nodes. > but it should uses different references because for internal it's > 192.168.x.x and for external it has a public IP. > > in this way, this node is a junction-ring for LAN and Internet. > I'm thinking about a LAN-freenet with some gateway/router-nodes (with a > public IP and a LAN IP) and several static (192.168.x.y) nodes.
If I understand right, what you want is to run a node on a firewall machine, which will be a non-transient node, and route freenet requests every which way. But for reasons of efficiency, you want to it prevent giving external node references to internal nodes, or internal node references to external nodes. You can achieve your end goal already without taking any special action other than enabling non-routable addresses. Consider a node on your firewall with internal interface IP 192.168.1.1 and external interface IP 1.2.3.4. It has node references to nodes at IP addresses 192.168.1.2 and 2.3.4.5. When your node talks to 192.168.1.2, it might send along the 2.3.4.5 reference. The node at 192.168.1.2, assuming it is completely firewalled, will not be able to contact 2.3.4.5 directly. So after several tries, it will drop 2.3.4.5 from its routing table. When your node talks to 2.3.4.5, it might send along the 192.168.1.2 reference. However, 2.3.4.5 will know that 192.168.1.2 is not a valid node reference (assuming it has the default configuration), so it won't even bother trying. (Or if it has enabled non-routable IPs then it will try a few times and fail, then drop the ref.) So there shouldn't be any trouble doing what you're trying to do. There will be some inefficiency inside the LAN as your internal machines try to contact unreachable networks, but they shouldn't even send packets out on the wire -- the kernel should slap the connection down with "no route to host" before it ever leaves the machine. However, I don't understand the reason why you want to do this, so maybe I'm oversimplifying something. If your goal is to provide massive storage for Freenet without much bandwidth, you'd be better off buying a single large disk and making one huge data store on it. This gives much better reliability and longevity -- a single 80 GB data store can hold 80 GB of Freenet keys, but two 40 GB data stores can't hold 80 GB worth of Freenet keys -- there's going to be some duplication. -- Greg Wooledge | "Truth belongs to everybody." greg at wooledge.org | - The Red Hot Chili Peppers http://wooledge.org/~greg/ | -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20021112/ab7ae4ad/attachment.pgp>
