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]
