So we force the distribution? Hmmm. We don't have to force the distribution if we path fold on successful requests, but forcing it is better in that it will almost certainly work regardless of e.g. local traffic levels.
I'm not sure about the "probability proportional to 1/d" bit, now that I think about it; doesn't that mean that there will be infinite probability that a point infinitesimally different to the current location will be chosen? Also, I'm not sure about NCNUM; if we are forcing the distribution, more would result in inaccuracy. If we avoid this by returning the NCNUM nodes closest to the target, we'll have a lot of nodes: I don't see why we should have hundreds of node connections on opennet, it's not necessarily better and it's a sure-fire way to mess up a darknet opennet hybrid. As far as I know, what oskar said would work was destination folding on a successful request, and I can see a number of advantages to this. Although we will need something like the described protocol for announcement. On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 01:27:09PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > I have created a wiki page with some initial thoughts on our approach > for an opennet design: > > http://wiki.freenetproject.org/OpennetDesign > > The key difference between this and Freenet 0.5 is that here we > separate the process of acquiring new connections from the process of > requesting data, whereas in Freenet 0.5 these two things were combined. > > Comments and feedback are welcome, > > Ian. > > Ian Clarke: Co-Founder & Chief Scientist Revver, Inc. > phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog -------------- 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/20060925/0a85bdfc/attachment.pgp>
