Oskar Sandberg wrote: > The only thing we would have to make sure is that the node address > fingerprints are done so that they can reasonably translated into a > SVK or CHK (it could possibly work even with SSKs, since you can make the > document name the number and then bump it once every time a new ip is > issued), which may be a fair provision
I like that idea. > Having nodes make choices is really not good enough. If a large part of > the network is not secure that still effects the part that is because it > makes everything from traffic analysis to data corruption attacks a lot > easier. Also, Freenet's topology will suffer very soon if we start having > disjoint sets of nodes that cannot connect to one another. True enough. Consider however that one of the features of the Freenet design is that it is transport-independent. Unless all nodes use the same transport, the network _will_ become disjoint. What happens when IPv6 nodes start appearing? This is why some form of transport independent addressing is important - it will work well with forwarding schemes. -- zem at zip.com.au F289 2BDB 1DA0 F4C4 DC87 EC36 B2E3 4E75 C853 FD93 zem.squidly.org "..I'm invisible, I'm invisible, I'm invisible.." _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
