I don't believe that the darknet and opennet will be weakly connected as you suggest, but neither of us can no for sure until we see it. I do not believe we should be complicating the routing algorithm based on a conjecture about user behavior. We should wait until we see problems before we try to fix them, unless we are absolutely sure that those problems will exist.
Ian. On 17 Aug 2006, at 05:07, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 11:31:52PM -0400, Evan Daniel wrote: >> On 8/15/06, Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: >> >>> Because in many cases the network we provide it with is not a single >>> small world network (which is what it is designed for), but two >>> loosely >>> connected small world networks of different parameters. >> >> It seems likely to me that interest in content will closely match >> connectedness of the networks -- content created on the chinese >> network will be of interest on the western network to a degree >> approximately proportional to the interconnectedness of those >> networks. So bottlenecks in the topology are present only in places >> where they aren't a problem. > > The location swapping algorithm will try to treat the network as a > whole. This content similarity is the basis of my argument for > treating > them separately - if two darknets are only weakly connected, it is > perfectly reasonable to try on the local darknet first when looking > for > content, since there is a limited capacity to the other and if we > try to > route globally it will collapse. >> >> Obviously I have no proof of this, but it seems at least as intuitive >> to me as the assumption that there will be a pair of loosely >> connected >> networks in such a way as to create a bottleneck. >> >> I think it is inappropriate to spend time or effort worrying about >> this problem until we have both a method to simulate the network in >> question and a set of load balancing / routing algorithms that >> work on >> a "single" network that we can test on a split network. The only >> counter argument to this that I can see is if there is obvious reason >> to believe that decisions made without worrying about this >> possibility >> will be actively problematic later in the development process, and >> that seems unlikely in the extreme to me. >> >> And lastly, why shouldn't the "split" network be small-world? By >> small world I assume you mean the triangle property holds, ie if a >> and >> b are connected, and b and c are too, then there is a significantly >> increased probability of a and c being connected. Is there some >> reason to believe that this property fails as soon as national / >> cultural borders get in the way? I can see there being bottlenecks, >> but I don't see how that precludes the small-world nature of the >> network. > > Because if you have two large networks which are weakly connected then > they simply cannot be routed as a single network, because of the > bottlenecks. >> >> Evan > -- > Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org > Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ > ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl 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/20060817/8ed48e33/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/20060817/8ed48e33/attachment.pgp>
