On Feb 6, 2008, at 3:57 AM, Michael Rogers wrote: > On Feb 5 2008, Robert Hailey wrote: >> My question is, *if* such an idea is considered valid and in such a >> case how could we be assured that us labeling and isolating a subnet >> is not what *keeps* it labeled as a subnet because it's routing is >> messed up for lack of swapping? > > We seem to be caught between a rock and a hard place - either we try > to > merge clusters into a single key space, in which case we're > vulnerable to > Sybil attacks, or we give every cluster its own key space, in which > case we > lose the benefits of greedy routing and have to route between clusters > explicitly. But perhaps either alternative is preferable to the > current > situation: we don't successfully merge clusters but we don't label > them > either... > > Cheers, > Michael
I think you're absolutely right. What's more, I bet there should be a particular relationship between the number of hops used for swapping and the number of hops for a connectivity test; that they would both be raised or lowered to make "Sybil" detection more/less sensitive. -- Robert Hailey
