I have the completed Freenet document, but its on my machine at school and
its dead to my pings. I'll try to reproduce it from memory tonight and
post it.
On 28 Dec 2000, Mr.Bad wrote:
> >>>>> "IC" == Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> IC> So I was sitting in the bath this-morning and I think I may
> IC> have the beginnings of an idea about how to address this issue
>
> Isn't that how all the best ideas get done? B-)
>
> IC> Let's say, on the introduction of public/private key
> IC> inter-node comms, a node address looks like
> IC> ptcp/x.x.x.x:yy/PUBKEYPUBKEY
>
> As an aside -- is there someplace I can find the proposal for pk in
> Freenet? Or is it one more of those hivemind designs that Freenet is
> famous for (i.e., everybody considers it obvious except for me. B-)?
>
> I'm just not sure I grok the goals.
>
> IC> What if we define a new address type, called a "Shadow
> IC> Address", which looks like this:
>
> IC> stcp/x.x.x.x:yy/PUBKEYPUBKEY/CYPHERTEXTCYPHERTEXT
>
> IC> Where the cypertext is a node address (with some added random
> IC> salt to thwart traffic analysis) encrypted using the public
> IC> key. When a node wishes to send a message to a ShadowAddress
> IC> they must forward it to the node at x.x.x.x:yy which will
> IC> decrypt it and forward it to the decrypted address.
>
> So, if I understand the advantage of this, it's that outside nodes
> (yes, I can't help thinking of "inside" and "outside") will still be
> able to have unique addresses for "inside" nodes, but all requests
> will route through the "shield" node? Is that right?
>
> And all the shield node does is provide an address-rewriting service,
> kind of like a PGP mail anonymizer. In fact, maybe it wouldn't hurt to
> support shadow chaining....?
>
> One thing I'm not sure of, though: what's the advantage of having lots
> of shadow addresses out there, if all messages still have to go
> through the "shield node"? I see that it's a different mechanism, but
> I'm not sure I understand the topological difference between shadow
> addresses and clusters.
>
Difference is that it doesnt effect routing at all. It just defines an
intermediary to reach a node that shields its identity.
> On first glance, though, this sounds like it would do a good job of
> replacing "clustering" without actually doing any clustering. B-)
> Although it -does- kind of draw more attention to a shield node than a
> clustering system would (since no one would know that a gateway was
> actually a gateway, but a shield node's IP address goes out with every
> shadow address).
Yeah, but thats the same as a cluster since the gateways address would go
out with every request from the cluster nodes as well.
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
