Re: [Gzz] hemppah's research problems document

[Tuomas Lukka]

On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 08:37:49PM +0100, B. Fallenstein wrote:
> Tuomas Lukka wrote:
> >No, this is still somewhat missing the point.
> >
> >Ok, I want to say I want all RFCs to always be on my machine so that if I 
> >go out
> >with the laptop I have them there.
> >
> >Some systems, such as DHTs cannot let other people use this "mirror" 
> >because
> >the files are not in the location the DHT would place them in.
> >
> >So if we think about a 5GB / 100MB split between my mirrored data / DHT 
> >area (which is quite reasonable), most of the potential capacity in the 
> >network
> >is not getting used!
> 
> I don't understand at all. As I have been so adamant about in my
> statements to hemppah, the DHT is for *locating* the data in the
> network. 

No, that raises entirely different set of issues.

>Your machine would, when going online, place into the DHT
> mappings (blockid -> your-ip-address), so if any computer tries to
> download the RFCs, they would in the DHT get your machine's address, and
> then contact your machine to download from there. 

The problem is that this puts in more steps to the algorithm and makes it 
MUCH more vulnerable to attacks: simply placing bogus data will be a pretty
good attack.

Similarly, if you put someone else's address up for all blocks, you can
create an immediate distributed DOS attack on his computer.

I don't know if a system like this has been analyzed by anyone; it may
be possible to overcome e.g. these problems but it's certainly not trivial.

        Tuomas