On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 12:15:48AM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote: > > Yes but the current choice of relationship between the time anticipated > > for retrieval of a particular message and the HTL is arbitrary. We know > > that the network retrieves information in logarithmic time, but our > > decisions as for when to decrement the HTL, and by how much, were > > arbitrary. > > Umm, what? I don't have a clue what you mean by the above paragraph > (seriously).
You, serious? First time for everything ;-) When a node forwards a message, it estimates the time required for a reply based on the HTL of the forwarded message. As far as I am aware, this calculation is based on guesswork. Your argument against increasing the HTL was, at least partially, based on your concern that a larger HTL would result in nodes waiting for ages for a response, yet this fact is purely a result of the arbitrary decision as to the relationship between HTL and the time estimate for a response. There is no evidence that a HTL of 100 is unreasonable, but if such a HTL would lead to nodes waiting around for ages, then the problem is the arbitrary calculation, not nescessarily that the HTL is too large. Ian. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20010616/0fe1f47a/attachment.pgp>
