On Thursday 31 July 2008 17:42, Florent Daigni?re wrote: > * Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> [2008-07-31 17:37:41]: > > > On Tuesday 22 July 2008 23:33, Florent Daigni?re wrote: > > > * Robert Mead <rmead at justconnected.dyndns.org> [2008-07-22 18:21:14]: > > > > > > > So it sounds like it will be about as secure as it currently is, but a > > > > lot more efficient. 5 to 3 is a big difference. > > > > > > ... On a small, ideal network. > > > > On a larger, messier network, it should make *more* difference. That is, if > > routing is the problem. > > Am I the only one thinking that routing isn't the problem but churn is? > IMHO the problem is location churn. The solution is for opennet nodes not to swap. But we need simulations before we can deploy that. Which Vive promised to do...
Node churn is another problem, and may feed into this. I don't know how we would mitigate it further apart from the above. -------------- 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/20080731/c43bac52/attachment.pgp>
