On Thu, Dec 28, 2000 at 11:23:25PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > I did understand this, but the fact that the "shadow" node still eats as
> > much bandwidth as it provides remains.
>
> The price of added security for those who want it I guess. Lets hope
> that not many people need to do this.
>
> > Also, I don't think you can be quite random, since the node doing the
> > "shadowing" would be best off having a list of nodes that it will shadow
> > for - otherwise the ability to ask a node to do unlimited data transfers
> > without caching the data is just asking for DOS attacks.
>
> I don't like the idea that people need to seek permission before using
> another node as a shield - this almost sounds like it requires human
> intervention.
>
> It will always be possible to do a DOS attack on any node, since any
> server on the Internet, Freenet or not, is vulnerable to DOS or DDOS
> attacks. The point of Freenet is that each node is individually
> expendable, and so DOS attacks won't hurt the overall network.
>
> Ian.
I suppose that if a node feels it is receiving a DOS attack due to
servicing too many "tunnel" connections, it can just decide to stop
doing it. Anyone legitimately trying to contact a shadow node thus
marooned could use its ARK to get another shield address.
If this were robust enough, then we could say that any node which
puts its IP address in a DataSource is volunteering to be a shield
node.
// Tavin Cole
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
