Re: [freenet-support] We need more seednodes + Seed operators please upgrade to test build
Hello, Is there a freemail address where I can email my noderef to? I'd like to keep this noderef anoymous. Thanks, Edzard Pasma Op 3-sep-2010, om 14:31 heeft Matthew Toseland het volgende geschreven: We need more seednodes again! If you can run a seednode, please email me your opennet noderef. You must: - Turn on "be a seednode" in advanced opennet config. - Have a static IP address or a reliable DNS name in your noderef. - Be port forwarded. - Have your node up roughly 24x7. The load on the seednodes is rather high at the moment because of lots of new nodes. More seednodes will spread this around and make it more manageable. Also, all seednode operators should upgrade to 1276-pre1 (update.sh testing / update.cmd testing). It has some important code for announcement load limiting. Thanks. ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/ listinfo/support Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0.7.5 build 1276 and my recent absence
> Freenet will route through that node (any request that is not > found in the "local darknet", and vice versa, "outside" opennet searches > will hopefully penetrate into that dark corner.) If by ignorance or unintentionally a member joins another darknet or opennet then the rest of the members, without their knowledge, would have lost their isolation. I have to believe that this situation would be disappointing to some of the members. But it also makes sense. Freenet is not in the business of enforcing darknets. Like the Internet, it is only interested in forwarding packets. Unlike the Internet, it attempts to protect the identity of the nodes. But we also know that with enough time this feature can be compromised as documented for opennet. > The "small world" concept is only an assumption of the > topology of a darknet which should in theory result in better routing > than a "drunk man's walk". > (Since it is assumed that more closely > related peers will also tend to have similar interests.) This comment is a big help. The assumption is that people with equal interests by nature form the small worlds. The routing is taking advantage of this insight. > However, it is > up to you to actually structure it this way. You are perfectly free to > screw that assumption up by blindly adding strangers as your darknet > peers. (Opennet, at least, is able to "evolve" over time to a more > small-world topology -- not so with "static" darknets.) Let me see if I understood this correctly. In darknets, members have the added benefit that routing will be more efficient if and only if they really share the same interests (as per your comment above). In opennet, the same situation would evolve over time (steady state). The idea of blindly adding members to a darknet is not what I was thinking (but I follow your logic, it would screw up the assumptions on which routing is based). I am thinking more along the lines of membership interests. I want to be in the yoga darknet group but also in the tennis darknet group. But if I join both, I have now bridged these two groups into a new yoga-tennis group. If I was to carry this operation of members joining other darknet groups, eventually I end up with one single group, what we have today, opennet. What are the advantages of a darknet? I take it faster routing (the number I heard is up to 20 members). It is a predefined same-interest group (as long as no random members are added). I thought version 0.7 was supposed to fix the problem of anonymity for nodes by creating darknets with the understanding that within a darknet anonymity is not necessary since in theory all the members know each other anyway. ___ ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0.7.5 build 1276 and my recent absence
No, it would not become the opennet as your node is still connected to mostly nodes who share your interest and who also connect mostly to nodes that share your interest. Thus you are still having the routing advantages of small world routing. If you carry that operation to everyone doing what you did then eventually the opennet would be a giant manually tweaked small world net, with just the odd random connection in there. > I am thinking more along the lines of membership interests. I want to be > in the yoga darknet group but also in the tennis darknet group. But if I > join both, I have now bridged these two groups into a new yoga-tennis > group. If I was to carry this operation of members joining other darknet > groups, eventually I end up with one single group, what we have today, > opennet. > ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
[freenet-support] Freenet 0.7.5 build 1277 and an apology
Build 1277 is now available. This includes a critical bugfix for load management. This bug was introduced around 1260 or so. People on FMS did suggest I revert the load management changes - it was one line, and I couldn't see why it was broken, so I didn't. Sorry folks. The build also includes infinity0's work on configurability of where we store stuff. There are now several different directories (e.g. node dir, client dir) which can be configured separately, this should make packaging easier. PLEASE UPGRADE, 1277 will be mandatory on the 17th. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0.7.5 build 1276 and my recent absence
On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 06:58:00 -0400, Uriel Carrasquilla wrote: > I am thinking more along the lines of membership interests. I want > to be in the yoga darknet group but also in the tennis darknet > group. But if I join both, I have now bridged these two groups into > a new yoga-tennis group. If I was to carry this operation of members > joining other darknet groups, eventually I end up with one single > group, what we have today, opennet. Yes, effectively. (Opennet behaves a little differently -- your neighbouring peers are constantly being swapped and optimized to approach a small-world topology.) > What are the advantages of a darknet? The main advantage, I believe, is security -- opennet nodes are relatively easy to monitor and traffic-analyze, given a strong opponent like Big Brother, by compromising your (constantly changing) opennet peers. In darknet, they would have to physically compromise each of your friends. Also, since opennet nodes are ... open ... all opennet node ip addresses can in theory be listed, and blacklisted. To do this in Darknet would require physically traversing the entire network. > I take it faster routing (the number I heard is up to 20 members). Maybe, although I don't think it's necessarily the number of peers that affects this -- the number of peers you are connected to is a limitation of your bandwidth. > It is a predefined same-interest group (as long as no random members > are added). Again, I wouldn't think of things in terms of groups. There will be cloudy clusters of common interests, but in general it's a open sea of connections. > I thought version 0.7 was supposed to fix the problem of anonymity > for nodes by creating darknets with the understanding that within a > darknet anonymity is not necessary since in theory all the members > know each other anyway. Darknet was implemented to fix the rather serious security issue of opennets. (Opennet in 0.7 was only supposed to be a transitional thing, for newbies and people not too concerned with scary opponents.) ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0.7.5 build 1277 and an apology
Matthew Toseland schreef: Build 1277 is now available. This includes a critical bugfix for load management. This bug was introduced around 1260 or so. People on FMS did suggest I revert the load management changes - it was one line, and I couldn't see why it was broken, so I didn't. Sorry folks. The build also includes infinity0's work on configurability of where we store stuff. There are now several different directories (e.g. node dir, client dir) which can be configured separately, this should make packaging easier. Thank you Matthew. Alas the backoff issue survives a whole row of builds, including this one. # Connected: 18 # Backed off: 9, all but one updated. A more individual problem probably, I asked before: is it normal that autoupdate causes FN to restart multiple times in the old version? If not, what can I do? This time things went as intended but it's the exception. Usually updates force me to do them manually, and delete nodedb4o etcetera on top. ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
