On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:14:13PM +1000, Zem wrote: > > 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?
I can consider that all I want, it doesn't really help. With Freenet routing the way it does we can only hope that what ever seperation occurs will not be fatal to the network. We can try to simulate and see what sort of settings work best for an (almost) disjoint Freenet, but with the simulation results being as a dismal as they are with a connected set, it is hard to draw any conclusions from that. Whatever the case, this is not a situation we want to agrevate by design. The unauthorized DH exchange goes. > This is why some form of transport independent addressing is important - > it will work well with forwarding schemes. I don't see why being able to look up the address would be of any help here. If anything we would need a system where a StoreData can carry several DataSources, one for the IPv4 reference, another for the IPv6 reference, etc. > > > -- > 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 > -- \oskar _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
