Grapevine Technical Overview

Stephen Blackheath stephen@blacksapphire.com
Fri, 24 May 2002 04:33:44 +1200


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Oskar,

On Fri, 24 May 2002 04:25, you wrote:
> It would be very easy to have a network implementation fall over even if
> the routing algorithm were deterministic and (in controlled conditions)
> 100% successful. In fact, the situation may in many ways be worse for
> such a network, since freenet can route around moderate numbers of nodes
> that come in and out of eligibility due to overload, whereas a fixed
> mesh network would need to do an expensive remap every time it happened
> (in a Plaxton based network I could easily see this leading to an evil
> circle).

Agreed, but Grapevine doesn't work like that.  To take one example, if a node 
disappears from the network, then it is replaced by another node within a 
short time.  A new 118th nearest node comes into its "field of view" and can 
be picked up with the periodic "advertisement" that takes place.  There is no 
"remap" process.  I don't have a full understanding of Plaxton or CAN, but I 
am pretty sure Grapevine is totally unlike those two in this regard.


Steve
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE87Rno7I0ehz47OHERAtmxAKCpH198nF2dylc7Ex6tTJpCHB+DAgCgmtIY
E/dmDyTTRm2FV9DEYqW3Pq4=
=q1cN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----