> True, but the paranoid will not want to publish them. (And if you're > not paranoid, why are you using tahoe-lafs?)
Don't forget the service provider/datacenter model should be accounted for in the naming convention - ie, these two nodes are sitting on top of eachother in the same cabinet, or are two blades in the same blade chassis, or they live on a virtualization cloud and 'move' from physical processing node to physical processing node. > True, but the paranoid will not want to publish them. (And if you're > not paranoid, why are you using tahoe-lafs?) Because it's cool / offers great data survivability / is fairly unique in its implementation. There are plenty of deployed Tahoe grids that are internal-use-only out there, where the servers are all 'trusted' (in that a 3rd party is no more likely to get control of a storage node than of the introducer or gateway). Nathan _______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
