On 28 Dec 2000, Mr.Bad wrote:
> >>>>> "SGM" == Scott Gregory Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> SGM> I have the completed Freenet document, but its on my machine
> SGM> at school and its dead to my pings. I'll try to reproduce it
> SGM> from memory tonight and post it.
>
> Wow! NO hurry, man! Wait til you get to the machine again.
Nah. I dont get back to my machine until the 8th of Jan, which is too
long to start discussion.
> SGM> Yeah, but thats the same as a cluster since the gateways
> SGM> address would go out with every request from the cluster
> SGM> nodes as well.
>
> Right. But let's say that there are 15 nodes protected by a shield
> node. That means that there are 15 addresses out there with the IP
> address of the shield node included -- and prominently featured as the
> protector. Like, "HERE IS SOMEONE PROTECTING NODES -> ".
Yes, thats true. There may be ways around this, but I'm just not sure.
> For a cluster, the same number of addresses will go out, but there's
> no indication that the gateway is actually a gateway. Yes, it's out
> there, and probly in higher proportion than if it wasn't a gateway,
> but it's still not totally obvious that the clustered nodes even
> exist.
This is also true. However, the capturing of a shield node would not
expose the nodes its shielding, since it doesnt keep a list of its
shieldees, its just protects them on-the-fly.
Scott
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
