[freenet-dev] One tunnel per request: justification

[Matthew Toseland]

On Friday 11 January 2008 19:06, Michael Rogers wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >> Not just leaves, but perhaps nodes whose neighbours all belong to
> >> different clusters?
> > 
> > Yeah, this could be a problem... Dunno how we'd deal with that...
> 
> I guess if opennet nodes are going to be excluded from premix routing
> then some darknet nodes could also be excluded.

Opennet nodes might have a completely different premix routing mechanism, 
something closer to I2P (more opportunity for cheating at the peer selection 
layer).
> 
> I have some notes somewhere on various ways of defining cluster and
> cliques... I'll see if there's anything that could be used to agree on
> the membership of a cell.

That would be useful.
-------------- 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/20080111/bdffc53f/attachment.pgp