pipe-net

Zenaan Harkness zen at freedbms.net
Mon Oct 28 19:08:50 PDT 2019


On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 11:27:43AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> Re randomized fan outs, here is a bit of a conundrum/ potential
> opportunity - in the balance between various options available to us:
> 
>   - Does it make sense for N0 to leave certain routing decisions to
>     another node in its route?
> 
>   - Is the "fan out + randomize" concept identifiably useful for
>     certain use cases?
> 
>   - For say N2 to do a randomized fan out in on incoming packets from
>     N0 (say via N1), N2 will have to buffer the incoming packets over
>     time period units of T, so that it has > 1 packet to on- send in
>     a randomized fashion;

The above is incorrect: N2 could "round robbin" incoming packets, or
rather randomized round robin, the packets incoming from route N0
(via node N1) to node N2.

Of course, this would introduce visibility if not chaff filled, if we
are working with one packet at a time.

Maintaining link rate means sending one packet per time period, and
sending chaff if we don't have wheat.

Therefore, for fan out to be network efficient, fan out links need to
be proportionally smaller b/w than the incoming link, which is
another "obvious visibility" issue in relation to G*A.


>     this naturally introduces latency - which of course is
>     acceptable, even desirable, depending on use case - we're now

and of course, undesirable in other use cases


>     conceptually heading into random latency/ high latency mix net
>     design territory.



More information about the cypherpunks mailing list