On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 03:30:58AM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote: > Firstly, I believe this is a bed pissing solution (nice and warm at > first, cold and sticky soon thereafter). Greater HTL values means more > caching, not less, and thus if that truly is the problem then increasing > the HTL will only make it worse.
The worst caching is that closest to the requestor, a higher HTL makes this less significant in proportion to caching on nodes which are likely to be closer to the data epicenter - so your assertion is not nescessarily true. > The argument that high HTL values > flaten the search trees also seems reasonable. You say this like it is a bad thing. It is possible that due to the seemingly rapid rate at which new nodes are being added to the network, that it is getting "strung out", and insufficient path-compression is taking place to address this problem. A higher maximum HTL could help to alleviate this problem. Ian. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20010617/74685c6c/attachment.pgp>
