Matthew Toseland wrote: > Opennet nodes won't participate in premix routing.
What happens if the darknet nodes don't form a connected subnetwork? > Okay, so on the one hand, more requests per tunnel means easier tagging > (noisier samples). On the other hand, less requests per tunnel means more > tunnels and more predecessor samples (more samples). Hmm... I suppose finding > the optimal number of requests per tunnel is a matter for simulation? Would > it be hideously complicated? As always, the problem is making it realistic... we can do a simplified simulation but it might not capture some relevant feature (like daily/weekly uptime patterns, just as an example of something that's likely to be relevant but hard to simulate realistically). > Well yeah but Frost IDs and splitfiles, and splitfiles and splitfiles, often > are linked. So it's not easy. Absolutely - we'd probably need to rely on clients to make informed choices (eg allow an arbitrary "batch ID" to be associated with each request, and try to send requests with the same batch ID through the same tunnel or set of tunnels, and requests with different batch IDs through different tunnels). >> If the routes are random, two tunnels that pass through different >> neighbours of X don't reveal any more information than two tunnels that >> pass through the same neighbour of X: the probability of the tunnels >> parting ways at X doesn't depend on whether X is the initiator. > > It doesn't? I had assumed they always parted ways at the beginning... hmmm. > Can you elaborate a little? If each hop of each tunnel is chosen independently and randomly, then once two tunnels reach X, the probability that their next hop is the same doesn't depend on the route so far - so it's the same as the probability of two tunnels that started at X having the same next hop. Cheers, Michael
