w the command line arguments to start and stop the node and
> > also if there are exit conditions (errorlevel 0, etc).
> > We need to make sure wget.exe, sha1test.jar and startssl.pem are
> > installed. Also it needs to be decided where those files will be
> > install
most MAnnounceSender.MAX_ANNOUNCE_REPLIES (and in my
sim run, precisely that many)
For some reason github won't let me issue a pull request at the moment.
--
Robert Hailey
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachm
I don't have much time to presently offer, though :(
>
One interesting argument: If we only announce to one node, we may get only
peers on one side of the circle - between the node we are announcing through
and the location we are announcing to.
I've just generally discarded this because there are so few accepts that we
will always have to announce to multiple nodes.
I do see it on a newbie node though - lots of peers near our location (which is
good), and a few distributed around the keyspace, but only out to roughly the
opposite end from our location.
Maybe we need to require multiple announcements? Also the
route-random-then-announce thing may help? Thoughts?
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20101105/aa16b399/attachment.pgp>
may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death,
your right to say it. - Voltaire
Those who would give up Liberty, to purchase temporary Safety, deserve
neither Liberty nor Safety. - Ben Franklin
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20101105/6efe1fb4/attachment.html>
ssage part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20101105/422fc0d1/attachment.pgp>
non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20101105/43611539/attachment.pgp>
etManager - we don't want
to accept requests too often etc. So the argument that path folding is rare is
dubious.
>
> I don't have much time to presently offer, though :(
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20101105/15cfcb9e/attachment.pgp>
A working implementation is visible here:
https://github.com/Osndok/fred-staging/tree/depth-first-announcement
With a simulator that shows that:
(1) it doesn't break announcements,
(2) it seeks the deepest nodes first (away from the seed node),
(3) it gathers at most MAnnounceSender.MAX_ANNOUNC
so we only accept one node, afaics.
>
> > and what is it intended to do (not necessarily the same thing)?
>
> It is intended to deliver the announcement replies in a depth-first
> order to the originator, in practice out-of-order messages might make
> them only "roughly" depth first.
I don't see how it does that. Even if it did I'm not sure what difference it
would make.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20101105/12851add/attachment.pgp>
Those look good to me
On Nov 5, 2010, at 12:31 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> I propose we ask, before the network seclevel, whether the user wants to use
> opennet, or darknet. Once we've asked this, we ask whether they want LOW or
> NORMAL (for no) or HIGH or MAXIMUM (for yes). We explain as f
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> I propose we ask, before the network seclevel, whether the user wants to
> use opennet, or darknet. Once we've asked this, we ask whether they want LOW
> or NORMAL (for no) or HIGH or MAXIMUM (for yes). We explain as follows:
>
> Do you w
nodes would let us connect at a given location, rather than
being the authority on what is at a given location
(4a) in other words, be "window" into the network, and not an "anchor"
(5) it follows the destination sampling paradigm, for which we have
very-nearly-hard-math
On 2010/11/05 (Nov), at 12:20 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> ...there are so few accepts that we will always have to announce to
> multiple nodes.
This might actually be proof of the "churn" effect I mentioned.
Because all the paths to remote locations (from a seed node), are
filled with
recently-announced nodes which are in there connection grace period.
--
Robert Hailey
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20101105/e404f552/attachment.html>
On 2010/11/05 (Nov), at 10:37 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
Okay, this email is very confusing up to the point where I realise
what you mean by "depth first". Normally "depth first" refers to a
depth first search, which is exactly what we do in AnnounceSender,
RequestSender etc. We go as dee
Those look good to me
On Nov 5, 2010, at 12:31 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> I propose we ask, before the network seclevel, whether the user wants to use
> opennet, or darknet. Once we've asked this, we ask whether they want LOW or
> NORMAL (for no) or HIGH or MAXIMUM (for yes). We explain as f
On Friday 05 November 2010 00:03:08 Juiceman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Juiceman wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Matthew Toseland <
> > t...@amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Monday 18 October 2010 14:30:48 Christian Funder Sommerlund wrote:
> >> > [Fr
On Friday 05 November 2010 16:01:02 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Thursday 04 November 2010 21:12:33 Robert Hailey wrote:
> >
> > On 2010/11/04 (Nov), at 3:06 PM, Ian Clarke wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Robert Hailey > > > wrote:
> > > As best I can see, then, there may be maj
I propose we ask, before the network seclevel, whether the user wants to use
opennet, or darknet. Once we've asked this, we ask whether they want LOW or
NORMAL (for no) or HIGH or MAXIMUM (for yes). We explain as follows:
Do you want Freenet to only connect to your friends?
YES: This is much mo
On Friday 05 November 2010 16:01:02 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Thursday 04 November 2010 21:12:33 Robert Hailey wrote:
> > There might be some onion routing magic
> > that could save this, but I doubt it;
>
> Full onion routing is not likely to be feasible on Freenet. We could build
> somet
On Thursday 04 November 2010 21:12:33 Robert Hailey wrote:
>
> On 2010/11/04 (Nov), at 3:06 PM, Ian Clarke wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Robert Hailey > > wrote:
> > As best I can see, then, there may be major problems with the
> > current announcement and path folding implement
Okay, this email is very confusing up to the point where I realise what you
mean by "depth first". Normally "depth first" refers to a depth first search,
which is exactly what we do in AnnounceSender, RequestSender etc. We go as deep
as we can before backtracking.
However what you mean appears
ted peer with an announced peer is
unacceptable IMHO.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20101105/2f2a8765/attachment.pgp>
21 matches
Mail list logo
