On Monday 04 August 2003 02:27 pm, Gabriel K wrote: > Hmm don't quite follow your logic here... why n*m? On the contrary, you > only ask n nodes. And also, it is possible to send the message ONCE to > another node, and then it will propagate through the entire network, and > each node will recieve the message only once (and forward it). The
N is the Number of nodes in the network. M is a FRACTION. M=1/(# of nodes that have the data.) > propagation is not serial through all nodes, it has some parallellism > depending on the how many nodes you want each individual node to know > about. My point was that you ether ask nodes one at a time, and the request stops when one has the data, or you fork the request and everyone within a set radus gets it. (or some where inbetween.) So N*M is the best case, N is the worst (although it would be faster.) Reguardless of how you do this, you are still asking a HUGE number of nodes for the data. If there are 1,000,000 nodes in the network, and only 5 have the file (on average) you are asking 200,000 computers. That is a LOT of wasted bandwidth! What's more the overhead of the netwok grows linerly with proportion to it's size. IE: If the network doubles in size, the network overhead doubles too. This is VERY VERY BAD! > This can be achieved by ordering the nodes in rings, connected to > eachother. I try to sketch my idea with illustrations and text at > http://www.student.nada.kth.se/~m98_khl/O-net.pdf, feel free to have a > look! > > > > 2. If you could, would you trust a server that you did not know who > > controlled? > > Well, the central server can only map who transfers a file to whom, but > nothing else. That is everything! It know who you are, it knows everyone you have connected to, and if it wanted it could find out everyone who downloaded or shared any file. This is a non-anonymous network! After reading your PDF I can think of a couple of ways of tracking down the IP of the admin. It is not secure at all. > I agree fully. > However I must say I still don't understand that way of thinking about > nodes that join the network and then don't share their data.. I don't see > that as a dangerous attack. That is a VERY dangerous attack! It means that if any computer can act as a proxy before sending out a request/shareing a file, (And if they can't then it's totaly non-anonymous) then any node can connect to all the nodes they know of and ask them to be a proxy for all of thir files. Then they can calim to have any and all the files on the netwok, finaly they can fake answer requests VERY FAST. This means a single user on a fast connection can render the entire network vertualy useless! > But in the idea described in the pdf above, > that's an easy fix. Because you have the central point that every node > trusts and obey it is easy. This also means that your network is not just limited by it's lack of scalability, but also the bandwith of the main server. Using your tenique to obscure the admin's IP, you effectivly limit the the networks usefullnes by the the bandwidth of the slowest user. > heh, well that argument is only relevant to freeNet, where you upload the > data first. > In "my" model you don't upload the data first. So an "evil" node doesn't > hold anyone elses data, only it's own. So it can't do any harm that way. Yes they can. Although I have not read it very throuerly I think there are many vunrabilitys to your approach. IE: what happens when someone starts dropping messages to admin etc. What happens when a node delays lots of requests diliberately. What happens when they join and rejoin the network to learn about more nodes and locate admin. What if they started an out of band DNS attack on the node next to them, and then prevent the ring to reconnecting. What about timing attacks? What about a malicious admin? etc. > Hmm maybe I have missunderstood something about freenet.. I always assumed > there are *many* freeNet networks.. > Is there just one? I thought it's meant like DC, that anyone can start a > little network. There is only one Freenet. It has several hundred thousand nodes. > Maybe my assumtion is flawed.. Maybe the contents of a file sharing network > is pretty static.. maybe you are right here yes.. > I think you mixed some things up that I said.. I don't want a central > server in charge of routing. I only want it to take care of things that > would be dangerous for the network as a whole if let to a single node to > decide. Only that. What exactly does that include? _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
