[p2p-hackers] Kad Network with Kademlia

[Eunsoo Shim]

Thanks a lot, Daniel.
Your information helped me a lot.

Eunsoo

Daniel Stutzbach wrote:

>On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 06:43:30PM -0500, Eunsoo Shim wrote:
>  
>
>>>I mean those that can receive unsolicited TCP and UDP packets on the
>>>Kad/eMule ports.  Either they must not be firewalled/NATed or the user
>>>must manually punch a whole to redirect those ports from the firewall
>>>device.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>So port 80 or 443 is NOT used at all for Kad Network?
>>    
>>
>
>Not normally, no.  eMule lets the user configure their peer to use
>ports other than the default, so they could use any port they want in
>that case.  But the vast majority of peers do not use port 80 or 443
>at all.
>
>  
>
>>"Iterative" DHT routing is inefficient compared to "recursive" one.
>>Is "iterative" routing used because of a concern about DoS attacks?
>>    
>>
>
>Kademlia is an inherently iterative DHT.  I suspect the Kad developers
>used iterative routing simply because they chose Kademlia as a
>starting point.  I'm not one of the Kad developers though, so I can
>only guess at the reasons behind their design decisions.
>
>I'd observe, though, that iterative routing is much easier to debug.
>
>  
>