On Tuesday 16 Apr 2013 23:35:54 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Hi Vlad, > > Am Dienstag, 16. April 2013, 18:38:28 schrieb Vladislav Sterzhanov: > > Perhaps I got something wrong, moreover, I bet that there is much more work > > to do that I've already found out, so I need to know what do you think > > about it? > > That sounds quite interesting. > > I think the first step for that would be to create a transport plugin which > provides the minimum functionality (i.e. flexible packet sizes by packing > multiple messages in one packet) and then checking what is actually needed to > make the plugin work better.
We already do this. We will continue to do this, with packet transport plugins or not. The plugin is supposed to be as simple as possible, and shouldn't need to worry about message reassembly, crypto etc; all the plugin needs to do is receive a packet and feed it to the node, send a packet the node has given it as a byte[]. > > But starting with a plugin, getting that to work and only once the plugin is > production ready, starting a spin off with more features. No, I disagree. This is all stuff in a higher layer, that any packet-based transport plugin (that doesn't provide its own congestion control) might need. In particular the default UDP transport needs quite a lot of work. Obviously *some* more advanced steganographic plugins will need to provide their own congestion control, PMTU discovery protocols etc. They will be able to turn off features, or use a separate API. But IMHO this proposal is not about transport plugins. It's about improving the middle layer.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
