To: devl at freenetproject.org
Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] (no subject)
References: <20030422040021.35869181BA6 at thelema.dyndns.org>
<20030429221703.GA18191 at locut.us>
From: Edgar Friendly <[email protected]>
Date: 29 Apr 2003 21:35:25 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20030429221703.GA18191 at locut.us>
Message-ID: <m2of2ohfv6.fsf at thelema.dyndns.org>
Lines: 35
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Ian Clarke <ian at locut.us> writes:
> > > I think what's going on is that it is almost impossible for nodes to
> > > route over uncached connections.
> > >
> > /me feels very vindicated about his suggestions to have fred not even
> > try to route over uncached connections
>
> Er, I wouldn't pat yourself on the back too quickly. GJ is pointing out
> the damage caused by accidental implementation of your suggestion, how
> you interpret that as a vindication of your suggestion is somewhat
> beyond my deductive abilities.
>
> Ian.
>
I can't figure out how to respond to GJ's "damage", because there's no
substance there to back it up. Are you sure you read what you quoted
properly?
My suggestion (and I hope people realize this) assumes some framework
behind the scenes to actually have connections to route over.
Optimally fred would keep active one connection (or two, if we can't multiplex
over a connection) to each node in the routing table. Suboptimally,
some limit on # of connections and a method of choosing what
connections to attempt so that normal routing is subverted the least.
Given this assumption, it seems to me quite reasonable to skip routing
to nodes for which a connection hasn't been established. Why doesn't
it seem so to you?
Thelema
--
E-mail: thelema at swbell.net Raabu and Piisu
GPG 1024D/36352AAB fpr:756D F615 B4F3 BFFC 02C7 84B7 D8D7 6ECE 3635 2AAB
_______________________________________________
devl mailing list
devl at freenetproject.org
http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
