There are a few useful features of having flexible routing. Each type has its applications:
> FROM: finney.org > DATE: 04/17/2000 09:55:27 > SUBJECT: RE: [Freenet-dev] hwo do we want it? > > Mike writes: > > The TOS flags that I would suggest would be: > > normal : (default) the way things are routed now Normal routing has the advantage that it likely has the best chance of finding something popular. I think that it does have some shortcomings in that where it finds something may not be where it is the quickest to retrieve. Also, it is not going to find something that someone is trying to keep alive on their node (information analgous to a static web page). The argument could be made that this type of information should be served through normal httpd means but freenet does still provide a certain amount of anonymity for hosts of this nature. > > throughput : the node accesses the node status table and > strongly > biases the routing > > to nodes with high bandwidth Max throughput routing would be useful in situations where large data files are being accessed. The file may be popular and there is no doubt that it is out there somewhere but you don't want to have to suck it through a thin straw. Providing throughput based routing for requests (and maybe even inserts) will cause another metric of key closeness based on data size ... this would be very useful to hurd large data requests where they can be handled most effectively. > > > speed : the node accesses the node status table and biases > routing > to nodes with low > > ping times Speed (or minimum delay) routing would be most useful in situation where the data you are requesting is small and multipart. For instance, a future metadata searching mechanism might return multiple small data chunks. Using this type of routing would search through various data clusters grouped through the normal means and would reduce the impact of the high percentage overhead inherent in requesting small pieces of data. > > > load : bias routing to nodes with low cpu load This type of routing would enable the by-passing of congested areas and might contribute to the overall health of the freenet. If a node gets overwhelmed with requests, the load routing will self-regulate the flow to that node and distribute the traffic a bit. > > random : just selects a node on the list at random (the > desparate, > shotgun option to > > request data from those hard to reach places ... might get > data from > that lone node > > that still holds some rare items) This is the type of data request that adds a little chaos into the mix. This is good for not letting data get too concentrated in a certain "area" on the freenet and providing crosslinks between data clusters. Also, as I mentioned earlier, this type of request might make otherwise unaccessible data available again. For example, data that someone is keeping alive on their own node by re-requesting it over and over. They can't re-insert it until it has expired from their node and requesting it keep it local and the normal routing would not find it unless you put the htl up very high. > > As I wrote before, I don`t see how these features would allow > you to > find the data. I am concerned that Freenet won`t work if you > start > changing the routing algorithm. > > Hal For what I can tell there are many advantages to having different routing techniques. They built it into TCP/IP for a reason. Mike _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
