On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 08:51:06PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> 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!
Come on, you have to admit its an interesting solution to both traffic
balancing and the ubernode problem. It might also shake up the system a
little by causing entrenched nodes to re-evaluate the routes by having
to find alternate routes for keys going to the most popular route in
their datastore.
Scott
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
Devl at freenetproject.org
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
