On Friday 17 August 2007 17:55, Michael Rogers wrote: > vive wrote: > > I'm not claiming it will typically happen, but its good to experiment > > with it to know some about how important clustering is. > > True - I can't see how a constant supply of random positions would lead > to greater clustering but I'm not saying it definitely wouldn't happen > either! :-)
On a partially darknet network, or even possibly on an opennet, due to some nodes having much higher uptimes than others (downtime is quite disruptive to a reasonably dynamic opennet), it is likely that there will be some clustering. > > > Should be correct directly after generated from Kleinbergs model. But > > what do you mean with current locations? Referring here to the current > > locations on the circle, where closeness does not have to mean being > > close in the network after having swapped and done destination sampling > > (where positions affect swapping). Is your suggestion to introduce nodes > > in roughly the same part of the network where others just disappeared? > > Not necessarily - wherever the new node appears on the circle, isn't the > important thing the relationship between its distance (on the circle) > from other nodes and its probability of being connected to them? Why > would the connections between the other nodes make a difference? > > Cheers, > Michael -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20070818/b03b14e8/attachment.pgp>
