On Sunday 03 August 2003 03:16 pm, Gabriel K wrote: > I'm sorry if it sounded like I thought there was a distinction. In FreeNet > there is no such distinction, true. > However, if you DO have such a distinction, one mechanism to search, and > one to request, then it is much easier to set the number of proxies.
That is all well an good if you only want to conseal the sender and the recovers identity, but what about the host's. One of Freenet's main goals is to prevent the NETWORK from being attacked. > Hmm... when you say "the network", and "your computer".. the differance is > only that the network constitues of whole bunch of "your computers".. so I > don't see it as a big plus when you say that ppl don't have to connect to > YOUR computer to get the file. It doesn't really matter which computers > they connect to. It is good that the load of downloading a file is > distributet as much as possible to avoid bottle necks, as freeNet and > bitTorrent does. The advantage is that they only connect to those they already connect to. Also you don't have to have a two phase download. AND "your computers" are not limited to people who have downloaded the file. > You mean because the file is split up in chunks and distributed in the > network? Yeah that's true, and indeed very good. > However it requires for the share to be uploaded... and as I said before, > uploading 60GB data is not so much fun :) Well, you have to upload it one way or the other. IE: on request or up front. > About frost.. it seems pretty slow.. first proxy the data into the network, > then let the requester know that it's available now (as soon as a chunk is > uploaded), then proxy the data back to the requester... lots of proxies > there right? First, yes frost is slow. Inserts make it slower. Inserts are given the lowest priority of anything a node does. This is because, presumably nobody is siting and waiting for an insert to finish, when surely they are waiting on a request. Please distinguish between proxies and intermediate nodes. For inserts and requests Freenet uses a mixnet approach for the first hop. It sends an message one node to contact another node and deliver a message to it. That message tells it to request the data and forward it back. This is totally optional. (And disabling this will speed things up) This is enough to protect both the sender and receivers identity, but it does not protect the host. Having the intermediate nodes does not really slow your overall bandwith. Yes, there is a set delay for the data to pass through all of them, but you can simply make more requests while you wait. Even a ISDN can have 200 outgoing connections. If you can't receive the data fast enough to get it from all of them once it starts comming in it will be waiting one hop away. > So will it be possible to have only ONE proxy, if the downloader, so > desires? > Let's say he think it's safe enough for him? You can have one or even no proxies. However, you can never set, or even know how many intermediate nodes their are. If you want to reduse that number as a whole, you can reduse the probability that YOUR node will act as one. However whenever it chooses not to, it learns nothing about routing. If your goal is to reduse latency and speed up large file transfers, I proposed a system that would allow Freenet to make use of nodes that already downloaded the data. Under this system, if you wanted, you could insert just the manifests for all the data you wanted to insert. Then request your data. That way you wouldn't have to upload anything until someone else wanted it. It would work with and take advantage of existing Freenet architecture. You can read my proposal in the archives. (last month under ".torrents and Freenet") However nobody has expressed any intrest in it. I have thought of many improvements upon my original proposal (including how to greatly improve the level of anonymity), so if anyone reading this is interested, e-mail me, and I could write some pseudo code describing exactly what needs to be done. > Btw, I read in some paper, think it was ACHORD or CHORD, that a thing about > freeNet is that you aren't guaranteed to find the data you are looking for > if it exists? Because you have to have a TTL on the request to avoid > infinite looping problems? True or false? (I read about freeNet some time > ago..) Correct, there are no grantees. Freenet borrows many ideas form CHORD. _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
