[GNUnet-developers] Hot Path Routing issue

[Marcos D. Marado Torres]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Greetings,

In GNUnet_pet.pdf (present in the papers section of GNUnet's site), a paper
released in 28th April 2003 (so I guess it is somewhat outdated), we can see
some considerations on Random Routing and Hot Path Routing, and the conclusion
is that Random Routing is innefecient but secure (less vulnerable to the
described attacks), while Hot Path Routing improves GNUnet's performance but
increases the efficiency of the described attacks.

To avoid that, the author sais that hot paths should be very static, i.e.
shortcuts should not be allowed on hot paths.

Reading this, my conclusion was that GNUnet should have that kind of hot paths
(those who doesn't leak queries to nodes that don't belong to the Hot Path),
and while (and if) that's not implemented, Random Routing should be used.

But my question is: how is this implemented nowadays? Are we using Hot Path
Routing? If we are, which kind of Hot Paths do we have?

Thanks in advance,
Mind Booster Noori

- -- 
/* *************************************************************** */
   Marcos Daniel Marado Torres       AKA        Mind Booster Noori
   http://student.dei.uc.pt/~marado   -   address@hidden
   () Join the ASCII ribbon campaign against html email, Microsoft
   /\ attachments and Software patents.   They endanger the World.
   Sign a petition against patents:  http://petition.eurolinux.org
/* *************************************************************** */
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76

iD8DBQFBtLadmNlq8m+oD34RAsz0AJ9MDOVzZqKXxyLNp+KHfU0FKUGIawCgtvX5
xtgRyCjwq1l7/mtlBkvs2dQ=
=4g6Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----