On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 09:13:59PM +0100, Michael Rogers wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Matthew Toseland wrote: > > One of the receiver windows? As I recall we were going to use token > > buckets for fair sharing (on _incoming_ requests). > > Right. The receiver window we advertise to each peer tells it how many > tokens are in its bucket. > > > Additionally RejectedOverloads are no longer propagated back to > > source. Load propagates back to source not by RejectedOverload's being > > forwarded to the original sender (as now), but by nodes punishing > > flooders > > I hope so, but I'd like to see how the simulations turn out before > committing myself either way - if we can only manage to restrict > flooders to an even share of their neighbours' bandwidth, > RejectedOverloads might still be useful for getting well-behaved nodes > to slow down.
In which case, we have serious problems; we are not limiting flooding effectively, and worse we are compromizing requester security. > > Cheers, > Michael > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFEkG4Hyua14OQlJ3sRAteLAKDnr4JgHAGRlNOQZWOTo5AP5XpOBACfZ3CO > A2omcMUVL369flVmQHQZuvU= > =xnoG > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060614/45054645/attachment.pgp>
