> Why not implement proper opennet? Your stated objection was > previously based on something Oskar apparently said, or didn't say, > but he now seems to think we should do it (in fact, I think this was > always his opinion).
I always was in favour of an opennet, and I dont like the idea of a semi-opennet. I think this idea only came up because some are against an opennet in general. In fact its just a hack: and most here on the list uttered no satisfaction about all those hacks which made it easier to connect to each other... sidekick to nextgens: is this message from Ian clearly enough stated? > I agree that we need to simulate it to ensure that destination > sampling (aka LRU) can co-exist with location swapping, but that > should be a relatively straight-forward simulation, Oskar may even do > it for us One intersting note: Toad states: if there is an opennet, nobody would use the darknet... Well if there is no need for a darknet, why we talk about it? Either there is a need, and it was good you built a darknet. Or nobody wants a darknet and there never will be success with darknet. If really nobody wants to use darknet, whats the point in keeping it with all forces? In fact I think toad is right, but my conclusion is completly different. Three months of 0.7 leads me to the conclusion that darknet is not a killer feature.
