From: ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:11:06 -0800 (PST)
To: roach_s@alph.swosu.edu (Sean Roach)
Subject: Re: subscribe
In-Reply-To: <199702130556.AAA02010@www.video-collage.com>
Message-ID: <199702130606.AAA17590@manifold.algebra.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


Sean Roach wrote:
> ...
> Something to consider.  If anyone of the distributed remailers is removed
> from a ring, the messages that need to travel across that ring can no longer
> do that.  This makes the loop only as strong as its most at risk remailer.
> The star approach has already been seen in action, the trouble here is a
> single choke point.
> Full interconnectability is only feasible in a small net, but I would advise
> this at first.  Check for the x-loop to see if another one got it first.  If
> none, add one and send it on down the line.
> A disjointed mess, if the remailers are given first access to the list,
> could work quite well as long as that x-loop remained to point to who sent
> the message, and the x-loop contained an unalterable message number, and the
> remailers could eliminate duplications, probably based on message number.
> This should work as the net grows and would only be as weak as the strongest
> two connected remailers.
> Sounds like the internet.
> 

I'd suggest a simplier solution: to connect each server with a couple,
or maybe three, other servers. This scheme is rather robust, does not
consume too much CPU time and bandwidth, and is easy to implement.

	- Igor.