On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 10:05:32AM -0700, Scott Miller wrote: > > This makes a lot of sense if you think about the equilibrium situation > > we want to achieve, where no node in the routing table is allowed to > > have a ridiculously large number of refs (i.e., be an ubernode). It's > > also an elegant way to address the "honest cancer" attack, where a node > > resets the DataSource to itself more than it should to attract refs. > > > > I've mentioned this to a couple people and the general reaction is that > > the approach is "too strong." Maybe so. One compromise would be to > > only drop the "top dog" if the number of refs owned by that node exceeds > > maxRefs/maxNodes. > I agree that it may be too strong. Perhaps you should drop it if it > exceeds some percentage of the total number of refs. I do like the > 'deleting from the top end' though.
Et tu Brute! -- 'DeCSS would be fine. Where is it?' 'Here,' Montag touched his head. 'Ah,' Granger smiled and nodded. Oskar Sandberg oskar at freenetproject.org _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
