Evan Daniel wrote: > I think flood routing inserts opportunistically is a good idea -- > there's no point in sending out a memory card less than full, and > routed requests / inserts may well not be enough to fill it.
My knee-jerk reaction was "flooding doesn't scale", but it's actually worked alright for Usenet - with a couple of tweaks. First, break down the traffic into channels and allow each node to decide which channels to carry. Second, flood the message IDs rather than the messages, and only request the messages you haven't seen. Both tweaks have disadvantages for a sneakernet though. Channel names would reduce plausible deniability, and flooding the message IDs instead of the messages would increase the latency by one round-trip, ie two days, per hop - message propagation is going to be *slow*. Cheers, Michael
