----- Original Message ----- From: "toad" <[email protected]>
> ARKs would be extremely helpful in improving the efficiency of the network for > people with 24x7 nodes whose IP addresses change relatively frequently. > > Is the following correct?: They would probably be useful if the network itself was really working right now :) > An ARK is actually SSK@<node key>/<node address>, contents of which is the new > node address. Since we never need to look up a node address from just the node > key, this saves a lot of time messing with pseudo-updating. > When Fred's CP for a node falls sufficiently low (or it backs off?), it looks up > the above URL to try to get the new address of the node, if it succeeds, it > replaces the node address. An ARK is used to look up the address, thus an address can't be one of the things needed for it. > Oskar said in January that ARK = SSK@<pubkey>/<counter>. Is there any reason > to use a counter? If you use a counter, you have to store the counter for each > reference, and ideally include it when sending the pubkey/address pair through > FNP. Yes. A counter is required. See above. > Any other major problems preventing implementation of ARKs, apart from lack of > skilled-developer-time? <skipping this question> -Mathew _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
