> Secondly, it is entirely reasonable to expect that a true darknet > and an > opennet will be two separate small world networks, which have > completely > different properties. Requests on the darknet would benefit from > checking the darknet first, because data is often cached within the > darknet (due to related interests, for example), and a darknet will > often > have very few links to the opennet, so there is a major performance > penalty for the transition.
I don't think there will be a distinct separation, I think most darknet nodes will be just a few hops from the opennet. > What I propose is that requests on the > attached darknet are routed first within it, and then forwarded out to > the wider opennet. We have gone through the trouble of coming up with an algorithm that should be able to figure out how to route around the network - why interfere with its routing decisions? > On the other hand, opennet requests which get routed > to an attached darknet will often be falling down a black hole, for > the > same reason: That there is limited connectivity between the two > networks. Our location swapping algorithm will work if it is > running on > a small world network. I doubt very much that it will work well if > it is > run on two small world networks which are not closely connected. Firstly, I think they will be closely connected. Secondly, you are second-guessing our entire routing algorithm, the whole point of which is to figure out how to route around a connected network. You are proposing a complicated solution to a problem that we don't even know exists, and IMHO probably won't exist. > Thirdly, yes it will break load limiting. What will and why? > It will definitely allow for > sybil attacks (harvest, connect to as many nodes as possible, > ignore all > incoming requests), aimed not at disrupting the network but at > achieving > maximimal local performance (at the expense of others). We see this > sort > of trouble with BitTorrent clients. Token passing load limiting / > balancing is not designed for opennet, and it's our best option at > present. You don't think #freenet-refs is subject to such an attack? > Thus, I continue to take the view that we should not implement opennet > before we have solved some of the current major problems, and got some > real opennet simulations You are talking as if we actually have some kind of idealized darknet now, we don't. For most users, we currently have a pseudo- centralized and extremely user-unfriendly opennet. Why do you want most of our users to have to continue using it? 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/20060815/7af385ac/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/20060815/7af385ac/attachment.pgp>
