[freenet-dev] Alpha, Darknet routing, et al.

[Michael Rogers]

On Feb 5 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> I was under the impression that the random walks for swapping were long 
>> enough to reach any node with roughly equal probability - I believe that 
>> was Oskar's intention. If the random walks aren't escaping from local 
>> clusters then we'll never be able to smooth out the clusters...
>
> Yes and no - in the case of poorly connected networks, the sheer capacity 
> of the limited connections between the two networks produces a bias, 
> doesn't it?

Good point - so even if there's no explicit swap limit it might be hard for 
locations to move between clusters...

Here's an updated simulation with looping random walks and swap limits. The 
last column of the output shows the fraction of swaps accepted - if you 
multiply the swap limit by 4, all swaps are accepted so there's effectively 
no limit.

The swap limit does prevent the subnets from completely segragating (even 
without randomly resetting the locations), but there still are many columns 
with 10-20% or 80-90% red nodes.

Is this good or bad? It limits the impact of Sybil attacks, but on the 
other hand it suggests that some "natural" topologies might never become 
properly routable...

Cheers,
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Simulation.java
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 3862 bytes
Desc: Simulation.java
Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080206/a9a0c951/attachment.obj