-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05/24/2012 12:48 PM, Zlatin Balevsky wrote: > The way we dealt with this problem in Gnutella was to cap the max > htl at each hop. Even if an attacker sent a message with very high > htl each node on the path would reduce it to a small value before > forwarding. Not sure if this will work with Freenet.
Currently at each hop the HTL is capped to the maximum HTL. Is this what you mean? I can see why you'd want to cap to something smaller then. > can you tell what is the absolutely lowest htl value that will give > "good enough" performance? That's somewhat of an issue: I don't think these number-of-appearance CDFs are a good way to show effectiveness, but I don't know how else to visualize it. > We should discuss this in more detail and have more people involved > before releasing these changes. I can see evanbd's point but the > side effects of very high htl must be taken into account as well. By all means! We're planning to have another review session in #freenet either Friday May 25th shortly after 3:15 BST or sometime Saturday, depending on when toad_ has time. You and any others are very welcome to join the discussion! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPvmoNAAoJECLJP19KqmFu3i8QAI9zCbqpUZGZ+UzBDqYAMQya PSdB/WOWIiuare1FfC8X/IPLC2NzPwZJNLguZJXiaRphJwDWUrKfdlcaav/F1t8U kIQNGcdvNf1SAPpRm/dyo1U6N60bj7J3cMVN2NXWVJdi/qHZmpHj++2Nm0QrEo1g yUmL09v+eZqCjBfDt+S/+wRuppn6zbuUgcLrTtPnlfvj3/3FKjFaJyti4f7LuN97 BzXYfydw6iQmwP6aMIPZ+f/aT7W6T7PXUclnSdQckJi5wl4eoZJ/C2g6AX4CK6Rv RY2zG1wBpXZdoWIoG6jkHU9YrdYHi+kYsBtpQe2qNxznNEOVXlzjpRH69I2Ld831 gEifMIbVAJlEyH1dtDSTrZwjZJCpfl/C+0agCyXTlpWGLoKkKk2od0MwECY4Hw12 egvqIlTuArMD27gohJxAIOiSsgX7Mux7J1GCXuv4R4voMidPuj1JwvVYzIlSHQsO 8pIwFXjGFQLeKtsNTH045vyUeQ0++Lrq1qBTpOZm7XtBfhpB+vzUqHL2IwOdxlGj RiSDLHXpekrjqq+dJju6Iz2jNTJvDZfD/LkdM8lxE83vqinik5hk4DHzb9qR2JER BlPjIxs3jVvVRIiACFy8CShBUuk0jsSYTEAEuyjErPfDPnj9REqg2fdW8Lqe0hiM zcssQFCqgyCFY9HXq6QL =YNFP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
