I have outlined 3 criteria under which I would be (relatively) happy to deploy an opennet. Others will disagree with my criteria and my evaluation of them, but I put them out for discussion. I will repeat them:
1. There must be major benefits to getting darknet connections on a currently purely opennet node, and to adding more darknet connections to an existing hybrid node. 2. It must be easy to add darknet connections. 3. The network must be relatively stable; we need to sort out load balancing and storage before deploying an opennet, or we will end up debugging far too many things at once. On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 02:12:40PM -0400, Colin Davis wrote: > I agree that it's a good idea, and I'd be happy to shut down > Ubernode.org when it's working. > > Ubernode.org is a hack, to help ensure people can connect. It's not a > faux-opennet, but it's not optimal, either. I'd be happy to shut it > down. > iFreed is a community-based site, which would survive, but change a > bit. SinnerG would have to make that call. > > > > That said, I do agree with toad, that there should be a reason for > people to still use the darknet, to help ensure that a number of > people still DO use the Darknet. I proposed one way to help ensure > this- Expose the work freenet is doing to get through NAT, track IP, > etc, to other programs, by forwarding packets from other programs, > acting as a Hamachi-style server. This helps to ensure people > actually connect via the darknet, and actually connect //With their > friends//. > > -Colin > > > On Jul 9, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Ian Clarke wrote: > > >I think it is clear to most people that the lack of an opennet > >option is proving to be a major inhibitor to adoption. What we > >have learned in practice is that if you only give a darknet option > >to people who are clearly willing to connect to strangers, then > >they will create their own opennet using kludges like ifreed.net > >and ubernode.org. Most Freenet users appear happy to connect to > >strangers, this isn't surprising, nor is it undesirable. The goal > >of 0.7 was *never* to force everyone to form connections manually, > >the goal was to provide that option to those that want it. > > > >I believe that Freenet 0.5-style "destination sampling" should work > >fine in conjunction with darknet connection swapping, as both > >algorithms have proven themselves robust in practice. We should > >simulate this to be sure. > > > >I really think we need to up the priority of opennet, as I think > >currently we are squandering interest in Freenet by forcing people > >to manually create connections to users. > > > >Ian. > >_______________________________________________ > >Tech mailing list > >Tech at freenetproject.org > >http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech > > _______________________________________________ > Tech mailing list > Tech at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech > -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20060710/5a6ada7a/attachment.pgp>
