On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 10:08:12PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote: > 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.
Oh, come on. This is not about "distrusting" a node... -- # tavin cole # # "Technology is a way of organizing the universe so that # man doesn't have to experience it." # # - Max Frisch _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
