[freenet-dev] FCP changes for ULPRs

[Matthew Toseland]

On Friday 15 February 2008 20:29, Michael Rogers wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > It is limited by his ability to have his requests accepted. Unless the 
network 
> > is idle it's likely that each node he tries to spam has all its peers 
sending 
> > requests to it too, so most of his requests won't be accepted.
> 
> A typical node won't accept three requests per second? Really? Even when 
> they don't result in transfers, so the bandwidth liability goes down?

Bandwidth liability assumes they all cause transfers. Because its objective is 
to prevent timeouts. It is likely that more requests will be accepted from 
the node's other peers than from the attacker. The failure table is a simple 
LRU and items are promoted when accessed. So certainly popular content is 
likely to survive.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael
-------------- 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/20080216/cd2153a9/attachment.pgp