diff options
| author | Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me> | 2013-11-13 21:14:57 -0500 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2013-11-14 02:15:07 +0000 |
| commit | 28eb490d686a3f1e9a0728ab8ab2c5bba06cacf4 (patch) | |
| tree | 74ed6f49875968f376f6b452b97c272bc8170068 | |
| parent | 6c7daf89963f53006c47fdc9d71c9404d488b9a6 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-28eb490d686a3f1e9a0728ab8ab2c5bba06cacf4.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-28eb490d686a3f1e9a0728ab8ab2c5bba06cacf4.zip | |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] [ANN] High-speed Bitcoin Relay Network
| -rw-r--r-- | 6c/36bdd3f028906569d93b1d8673071ac24ef2e3 | 76 |
1 files changed, 76 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/6c/36bdd3f028906569d93b1d8673071ac24ef2e3 b/6c/36bdd3f028906569d93b1d8673071ac24ef2e3 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..5005d8a7f --- /dev/null +++ b/6c/36bdd3f028906569d93b1d8673071ac24ef2e3 @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>) id 1VgmSZ-0000Wo-8A + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Thu, 14 Nov 2013 02:15:07 +0000 +Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bluematt.me + designates 192.241.179.72 as permitted sender) + client-ip=192.241.179.72; envelope-from=bitcoin-list@bluematt.me; + helo=mail.bluematt.me; +Received: from mail.bluematt.me ([192.241.179.72]) + by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) + (Exim 4.76) id 1VgmSX-0008BO-8o + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Thu, 14 Nov 2013 02:15:07 +0000 +Received: from [10.232.233.22] (vps.bluematt.me [173.246.101.161]) + by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 43F7548FA3; + Thu, 14 Nov 2013 02:14:59 +0000 (UTC) +Message-ID: <52843221.8010606@bluematt.me> +Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:14:57 -0500 +From: Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me> +User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; + rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 +MIME-Version: 1.0 +To: John Dillon <john.dillon892@googlemail.com> +References: <5279D89D.5000609@bluematt.me> + <CAPaL=UXyARJ21w6W2dGxJ23wgsGL3O9LD0yT0Ai7GJyJmKFZBw@mail.gmail.com> +In-Reply-To: <CAPaL=UXyARJ21w6W2dGxJ23wgsGL3O9LD0yT0Ai7GJyJmKFZBw@mail.gmail.com> +X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit +X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) +X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. + See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. + -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for + sender-domain + -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record + -0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay + domain +X-Headers-End: 1VgmSX-0008BO-8o +Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [ANN] High-speed Bitcoin Relay Network +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 +Precedence: list +List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 02:15:07 -0000 + +In the short-term, maybe. Keep in mind that the code for tx relay is +fairly different and the bandwidth for transaction relay on these +nodes is already lower than it is for blocks (by design). That said, +I'd like to look into doing tx-less block relays for transactions that +peers already have to limit block relay times even for large blocks, +in which case tx relay is very much required. + +Matt + +On 11/13/13 15:13, John Dillon wrote: +> You should split the block-only and block+tx not only by port +> number, but also by DNS address. DoS attack by flooding blocks is +> fundamentally more difficult than DoS attack by flooding +> transctions, so doing the split by IP address ensures that in the +> event of an attack the more important block relaying functionality +> is less likely to be damaged. In the meantime point both DNS +> addresses to the same IP until it becomes an issue. +> +> + + |