On Feb 5 2008, Robert Hailey wrote: >My question is, *if* such an idea is considered valid and in such a >case how could we be assured that us labeling and isolating a subnet >is not what *keeps* it labeled as a subnet because it's routing is >messed up for lack of swapping?
We seem to be caught between a rock and a hard place - either we try to merge clusters into a single key space, in which case we're vulnerable to Sybil attacks, or we give every cluster its own key space, in which case we lose the benefits of greedy routing and have to route between clusters explicitly. But perhaps either alternative is preferable to the current situation: we don't successfully merge clusters but we don't label them either... Cheers, Michael
