Re: [Gzz] hemppah's research problems document

[Tuomas Lukka]

On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 11:24:41AM +0200, address@hidden wrote:
> Quoting Tuomas Lukka <address@hidden>:
> 
> 
> > > 
> > > More vulnerable to attacks than what?
> > > 
> > > Are you *seriously* suggesting that the DHT should store the actual
> > blocks?
> > 
> > What I'm seriously saying is that 
> > 
> > 1) DHT storing the actual blocks is
> >     + pretty well understood
> >     + quite efficient, robust and not too attackable
> >     - not good for us, because data is where the network wants it,
> >       not where users want it to be
> > 2) DHT storing IPs of nodes is
> >     + in some ways what we'd like, because data is where users
> >       want it
> >     - not well understood and researched
> >     - efficiency unknown, if nodes blink in and out:
> >             in a DHT, the nodes nearby would notice that some node
> >             is down and remove it from the routing tables. In your
> >             suggestion ("benjanet" ;), the actual IP would be what
> >             everyone gets and tries to access.
> >     - unknown if we can ensure that data is reasonably replicated
> >     - quite easy to attack in various ways
> > 
> > I'm saying that the assumption, when talking about DHTs is 1), since
> > that's the alternative that's known.
> > 
> > 2) is not at all known, and has potentially huge drawbacks.
> 
> Am I missing something important here ? AFAIK, DHTs only maintains the
> distributed mappings of data key --> ip-address values (at least Kademlia 
> based
> DHTs). The ip-addess is the computer which provided the service into the 
> network.
> 
> Please confirm this and tell me if I'm wrong.

You have read the articles; I haven't.

Seems I'm likely wrong. 

Although... how well has the IP-based part been analyzed?

        Tuomas