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; 
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [ANN] High-speed Bitcoin Relay Network
Precedence: list

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.
> 
>