On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 11:58:22AM -0700, Scott Miller wrote: > 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.
The percentage thing is too arbitrary, it rubs me the wrong way. My reaction, though, was to both of you presenting these as solutions to the honest cancer issue, given the first rule. -- '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
