On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 03:01:24PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 27 Jun 2006, at 12:24, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > >Do we want semi-opennet support? This would be a way to connect, with > >mutual advance consent, to peers of our direct peers? (There would be > >measures taken to ensure that we don't connect to peers of their > >direct > >peers). > > Why not implement proper opennet? Your stated objection was > previously based on something Oskar apparently said, or didn't say, > but he now seems to think we should do it (in fact, I think this was > always his opinion).
Partly that it hasn't been simulated successfully. Partly the strong suspicion that life will be harder on opennet w.r.t. load balancing, data migration etc. Partly the political issue that if we build an opennet, nobody will use the darknet, unless we make it seriously compelling to do so. > > I agree that we need to simulate it to ensure that destination > sampling (aka LRU) can co-exist with location swapping, but that > should be a relatively straight-forward simulation, Oskar may even do > it for us :-) Maybe. I would be fascinated to see the results. > > Ian. -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060628/bad517cc/attachment.pgp>
