--- Toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 11:34:50AM +0200, Some Guy wrote:
> > --- Toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 02:12:55PM +0200, Some Guy wrote:
> > > > Was NGR tested as extensively as freenet's original routing? If not then why?
> > > >
> > I don't see why testing it would be any harder than testing the old
> > routing as was done in the freenet paper(freenet.pdf 1999). For the
> > paper the simulated 1000 nodes. They didn't have move actual data
> > around. The NG 10 points seems like less state per node to simulate
> > than
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 11:34:50AM +0200, Some Guy wrote:
> --- Toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 02:12:55PM +0200, Some Guy wrote:
> > > Was NGR tested as extensively as freenet's original routing? If not then why?
> > >
> > > You could have reused some of the same co
--- Toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 02:12:55PM +0200, Some Guy wrote:
> > Was NGR tested as extensively as freenet's original routing? If not then why?
> >
> > You could have reused some of the same code from the first freenet paper. Even
> > now this
> might
> > st
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 02:12:55PM +0200, Some Guy wrote:
> Was NGR tested as extensively as freenet's original routing? If not then why?
>
> You could have reused some of the same code from the first freenet paper. Even now
> this might
> still be a good idea. Sorry if you guys have done thi
Was NGR tested as extensively as freenet's original routing? If not then why?
You could have reused some of the same code from the first freenet paper. Even now
this might
still be a good idea. Sorry if you guys have done this and I haven't heard, but I
never was all
that convinced by NGR.
