On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 08:01:37PM -0500, Brandon wrote: > > > Addresses look like "udp/224.0.0.1:19114". Is this not what you meant? > > This is fine if it uses freenet protocol. I just subconsciously assumed > that a udp implementation (especially multicasted) would use some kind of > variant of the protocol that was more compressed. If it uses vanilla FP > then that's great. > >
Just a different transport, and everyone that has joined the multicast channel will hear the message. Great for announcing the existence of your node, everyone listening knows you're there. Multicast isn't just for A/V, you know. There has been an idea kicking around for a while to use a channel for announcing TLD server configuration. Last I heard, (1 -2 years ago) multicast was disallowed at the linx, so multicast packets may not get across the big pond. This may have changed, though. The biggest downside to multicast is that lots of ISP's don't support it directly, you have to set up tunnels in many cases to routers that speak the lingo. Might be an excellent solution for the university situation, sure would let the steam out of the bandwidth usage argument. Especially at the ones with CS departments and cluefull admins :-) David Schutt _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
