On Thursday 31 July 2008 17:42, Florent Daignière wrote: > * Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-31 17:37:41]: > > > On Tuesday 22 July 2008 23:33, Florent Daignière wrote: > > > * Robert Mead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-22 18:21:14]: > > > > > > > So it sounds like it will be about as secure as it currently is, but a > > > > lot more efficient. 5 to 3 is a big difference. > > > > > > ... On a small, ideal network. > > > > On a larger, messier network, it should make *more* difference. That is, if > > routing is the problem. > > Am I the only one thinking that routing isn't the problem but churn is? > IMHO the problem is location churn. The solution is for opennet nodes not to swap. But we need simulations before we can deploy that. Which Vive promised to do...
Node churn is another problem, and may feed into this. I don't know how we would mitigate it further apart from the above.
pgpVehrcg4Vyt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
