Bloom filters could work well and safely with properly implemented, cellular premix routing, because if it is cellular, the fact that N nodes have newly got pieces of a specific file doesn't tell you very much. OTOH if it's not cellular you can maybe triangulate the requestor.
Premix routing and passive requests: also possible... data can be delivered one hop at a time, when nodes come online. Throttled to avoid spurts. Note that they may not come online, so this is somewhat unreliable, not a problem for ULPRs, true passive requests will have to be auto-cancelled and eventually rerouted. Passive requests will *definitely* have to be persistent across reboots if they are sent through premix routing. Cellular structure: If certain constraints are not met by the cell, nobody can send; if other constraints are not met, specific paranoia levels cannot send ... On Thursday 22 November 2007 11:33, Matthew Toseland wrote: > Is there anything here we could use in 0.7? I don't see how we could directly > use file mesh, unless the length of the bitfield is very large. Bloom filters > might help for very popular documents and the last few hops, as Oskar has > advocated for a long time now. However, they would make the local request > security situation even worse, unless we implement premix routing first, and > even if we do, we might have to premix out more hops than we have Bloom > filters for? Would it be useful to use file mesh directly even? How would we > determine an appropriate mesh size? Also, vivee has had some results > suggesting that it is possible to usefully performance-bias 0.7 routing... > > Comments? > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20071122/48108f6e/attachment.pgp>
