>>>>> "d" == david <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> So, as most people know, Fred has most of the code about making
>> connections between nodes pretty abstracted out. Right now, the
>> only connection classes are for direct TCP connections between
>> nodes, but I've been wondering about other types of connections
>> and addresses.
d> Instead of tunneling, how's about directly over some other
d> protocols?
Well, it's tunneling in the sense that the FNP is encapsulated over
the other protocol. This is probably the easiest way to make Fred use
other protocols. As best I can tell, it'd be pretty hairy (read:
practically impossible, and not really worth it) to make the Core
speak something besides FNP.
d> UUCP
d> Believe it or not, it's still used, and usefull, in large
d> portions of the world.
Well, hrm. That's interesting, I guess. Sure would fake people out.
d> Bluetooth L2CAP
d> Has its own transport layer encryption, and even if Bluetooth
d> isn't the bee's knee's, other similar technologies are likely
d> to come along.
Freenet on your Fridge!
d> Ethernet
d> Is TCP/IP even necessary when talking to nodes on the same lan?
d> Not sure, but it might be worth investigating. Especially now
d> that there is talk of last mile Ethernet over fiber.
The big problem here is that it's pretty hard to write Javur code that
goes directly to Ethernet, skipping over TCP/IP. And there's
DEFINITELY no system independent way to do it. I wouldn't want to try
it.
~Mr. Bad
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mr. Bad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Pigdog Journal | http://pigdog.org/
freenet:MSK@SSK@u1AntQcZ81Y4c2tJKd1M87cZvPoQAge/pigdog+journal//
"Statements like this give the impression that this article was
written by a madman in a drug induced rage" -- Ben Franklin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_______________________________________________
freenet-tech mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
