[freenet-dev] Bloom filters and premix was Re: Possibly interesting paper on Freenet

[Matthew Toseland]

Bloom filters could work well and safely with properly implemented, cellular 
premix routing, because if it is cellular, the fact that N nodes have newly 
got pieces of a specific file doesn't tell you very much. OTOH if it's not 
cellular you can maybe triangulate the requestor.

Premix routing and passive requests: also possible... data can be delivered 
one hop at a time, when nodes come online. Throttled to avoid spurts. Note 
that they may not come online, so this is somewhat unreliable, not a problem 
for ULPRs, true passive requests will have to be auto-cancelled and 
eventually rerouted. Passive requests will *definitely* have to be persistent 
across reboots if they are sent through premix routing.

Cellular structure: If certain constraints are not met by the cell, nobody can 
send; if other constraints are not met, specific paranoia levels cannot 
send ...

On Thursday 22 November 2007 11:33, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Is there anything here we could use in 0.7? I don't see how we could 
directly 
> use file mesh, unless the length of the bitfield is very large. Bloom 
filters 
> might help for very popular documents and the last few hops, as Oskar has 
> advocated for a long time now. However, they would make the local request 
> security situation even worse, unless we implement premix routing first, and 
> even if we do, we might have to premix out more hops than we have Bloom 
> filters for? Would it be useful to use file mesh directly even? How would we 
> determine an appropriate mesh size? Also, vivee has had some results 
> suggesting that it is possible to usefully performance-bias 0.7 routing...
> 
> Comments?
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20071122/48108f6e/attachment.pgp