On 14 Aug 2006, at 13:17, Matthew Toseland wrote: > Should darknet and opennet be semi-separate networks?
I'm pretty sure that the answer to this question is "absolutely not". > IMHO we will need some sort of mechanism for dealing with the case > where > we have two networks, with limited connectivity between them. These > would be "semi-separate" networks. This can occur with two > darknets; the > Chinese darknet and the Euroamerican darknet would probably have few > links between them. But it may also be the case with darknet and > opennet. Why? What is the advantage of separating the networks? As I see it this would only reduce the utility of both networks. > The reason I suggest this for darknet vs opennet is this: > - The optimal routing algorithms for darknet and opennet may not be > the > same; on darknet, location swapping is crucial, but on opennet, > it is > unnecessary. So what? Location swapping only occurs when it will improve the network topology (except in rare circumstances), so if opennet has already done a good job of achieving a desirable network topology, then location swapping will leave it alone, it certainly shouldn't hurt it. > - The load limiting algorithms proposed for darknet will need > considerable adaptation for opennet. Why? OpenNet is simply about automating (and securing) a process that is already occurring now, the difference is that now people are using extremely inconvenient kludges like #freenet-refs, without regard to achieving an appropriate network topology whereas opennet will be extremely convenient for users, and should achieve an ideal network topology. From most perspectives, including that of the load limiting algorithm, opennet should make its life easier - it certainly shouldn't be any worse than the kludged opennet we have today. > - There is no real reason to expect the two networks to make any > sort of > sense topologically when put together. Why not? We have two adaptive algorithms both trying to achieve the same goal - a log(d) network topology. Both of them have the quality that their effect on the topology is proportional to the difference between the current topology and its desired state. Because of this, the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that both algorithms will complement each other, rather than step on each other's toes. Separating the opennet from the darknet will reduce the utility of both networks, I suspect it will probably result in almost nobody using the darknet at all, I assume that isn't what you are trying to achieve? I think its time we acknowledged that until we provide the option of proper opennet functionality, we won't actually have a darknet, since until we provide a proper solution, everyone is just kludging their own extremely cumbersome opennet using #freenet-refs, and other tools (none of which are likely to lead to a desired network topology). Ian. Ian Clarke: Co-Founder & Chief Scientist Revver, Inc. phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060814/7c83e520/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060814/7c83e520/attachment.pgp>
