On Monday 27 October 2003 09:58 pm, Toad wrote: > > It would use a lot of RAM, and if we implemented TUKs we would never have > > to request keys that did not exist in the first place. TUKs have other > > advantages too. IE: Frost would only need to make a very small fraction > > of the requests it does now. > > I don't see why TUKs, or even passive requests, would solve the problem > entirely. If a large fraction of our requests won't succeed no matter > what, that is going to have a significant effect on routing estimator > accuracy and on our ability to gauge whether routing is working
If we had TUKs why would we ever have a request fail for data other than: A. It really isn't in the network. or B. It used to be in the network and fell out. Frost can have each board on a SSK or 20 each with their own TUK. If the TUK can be updated by any node that has the key, then all frost would have to do is request the TUK. Then if that version was newer than what you have you can request the new messages. There is no reason to try to guess keys and request them. (The only thing I wonder about is if two node insert the same new key at exactly the same time, and they cross paths, what would happen?) > (routingSuccessRatio) - this proposal gives a possible means to mitigate > that. And I rather think it is possible to implement it using relatively > little RAM, and to substantially reduce the RAM usage of other > subsystems. And finally, RAM is cheap... OK, so maybe the overhead isn't huge. However there will be some and TUKs are indisputably a good idea, and IMHO a much better solution. _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
