On 25 Sep 2006, at 04:47, toad wrote: > So we force the distribution? Hmmm. We don't have to force the > distribution if we path fold on successful requests, but forcing it is > better in that it will almost certainly work regardless of e.g. local > traffic levels.
It can't hurt. > I'm not sure about the "probability proportional to 1/d" bit, now > that I > think about it; doesn't that mean that there will be infinite > probability that a point infinitesimally different to the current > location will be chosen? There is some formula to randomly select numbers in the distribution we want, ask Oskar. > Also, I'm not sure about NCNUM; if we are forcing the distribution, > more > would result in inaccuracy. If we avoid this by returning the NCNUM > nodes closest to the target, we'll have a lot of nodes: I don't see > why > we should have hundreds of node connections on opennet, it's not > necessarily better and it's a sure-fire way to mess up a darknet > opennet > hybrid. Yeah, taking the NCNUM nodes closest to the target location would be better. > As far as I know, what oskar said would work was destination > folding on > a successful request, and I can see a number of advantages to this. > Although we will need something like the described protocol for > announcement. We could do destination folding on successful requests too (where both nodes are opennet). Ian. Ian Clarke: Co-Founder & Chief Scientist Revver, Inc. phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060925/89b3543c/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060925/89b3543c/attachment.pgp>
