From: “James A. Donald” <jamesd@netcom.com>
To: Wei Dai <weidai@eskimo.com>
Message Hash: d785015b23e825a2f706d467eb828b42725b3c0c3ca0685c1e159803cf4e86b2
Message ID: <Pine.3.89.9502062012.A1613-0100000@netcom13>
Reply To: <199502070328.AA11135@mail.eskimo.com>
UTC Datetime: 1995-02-07 04:46:27 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 6 Feb 95 20:46:27 PST
From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd@netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 95 20:46:27 PST
To: Wei Dai <weidai@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: (dis)advantages of DC-Net vs remailers
In-Reply-To: <199502070328.AA11135@mail.eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9502062012.A1613-0100000@netcom13>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
On Mon, 6 Feb 1995, Wei Dai wrote:
> I think over the long run the last factor will be most important. In
> a DC-Net, for each bit one participant wants to send to another, EVERY
> OTHER participant must broadcast a bit to ALL participants. I can
> imagine a remailer-net with one million users, but I don't see any
> possibility that a DC-Net can be scaled to that size.
Not so -- you merely have to broadcast to enough people.
But then the topology, and hence the complexity, gets worse.
This however merely reduces the bandwidth waste from n^2 to n*lg(n)
A further wrinkle -- forming DC nets of DC nets, can reduce the
bandwidth waste to lg(n)^2, which should scale adequately to cover
the cosmos, but then the complexity gets really scary.
And when you try to figure how to deal with denial of service
attacks in a big DC net that tries to use bandwidth with
tolerable efficiency -- I don't know if anyone has figured out
what would be involved -- I certainly have not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|
We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.catalog.com/jamesd/
and our property, because of the kind |
of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald
derives from this right, not from the |
arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. | jamesd@netcom.com
Return to February 1995
Return to ““Wei Dai” <weidai@eskimo.com>”