-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Matthew Toseland wrote: > Is this the best option? It is perhaps closest to "propagate the load > back to the originator"?
One disadvantage is that if the originator isn't well behaved, load limiting won't work - a selfish originator might refuse to throttle back. TCP has the same problem but it's not designed for such an adversarial environment. Unfortunately this boils down to the problem of encouraging users to contribute as many resources as they use, which is a can of worms. I've been doing some work in this area and I think the problem can be solved in a way that doesn't compromise anonymity or decentralisation, but it requires some additional mechanisms for measuring the level of service provided by your peers and allocating resources to them accordingly. This is a robustness issue as well as a performance issue, because without load limiting a small number of senders might be able to flood the network. Cheers, Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEO/+Uyua14OQlJ3sRAtMtAJwM6EItTRuf8sAiKmzR4a2lwyqicQCg9pSn VUahpmyhjQIYWRRY+icfdP8= =7/84 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
