Re: DHT traffic concerns

> For instance, a "passive" UP can have a routing
> table going to the depth of 5, flat, whereas a "passive leaf" could
be limited
> to a depth of 4.  That means 2^5 and 2^4 buckets of 20 nodes at most.

In my opinion, 2^5 and 2^4 buckets of 20 nodes (contacts) are lots of
contacts to maintain for passive nodes. What passive nodes need most
is a small set of (reliable) nodes serving as gateways to the DHT.
While larger routing table make queries go faster, but it create more
maintenance traffic. Note that many of the passive nodes have short
session time.


> P.S: The DHT is currently suffering from a wrong publishing and
replication
> algorithm from LimeWire nodes.  I've identified problems and offered
design
> solutions for that. 

What problem are you talking about?


Thanks,
Peng