Toad wrote:
>>2. I really suspect that more serious bandwidth limiting should be done at an
>>operating system (router) level rather than at the Freenet level. I suspect
>>that's what you'll be told around here. That way you can also take account of
>>things happening other than your node. :-) 
> 
> Perhaps. That would also lead to high message send times though. Freenet
> needs to know what the limit is even if you use external limiting.

Is message send time a problem? I mean, AFAIK freenet is able to recognize
links with higher latency and use them as little as possible, thus reducing
the outbound traffic over those links in favour of "local"
(=not-so-limited) nodes.
The other two possibilities, namely lower bandwidth for all and an add-on
to fred, look uninviting: the first because it's just sub-optimal, the
second because both it requires much work on fred (to implement the
different bandwidth levels and to test them -- how many nodes would benefit
from that?) and, for those who need the feature, does not significantly
reduce the amount of configuration work (compared to a QOS system).

Please correct me if I'm wrong! :)

Greetings

-- 
/~\ The ASCII                            TLD
\ / Ribbon Campaign     "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain
 X  Against HTML        a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty
/ \ Email!              nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

_______________________________________________
Support mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to