You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We introduced a change to double the usefulness interval i.e. the grace period we give to peers to be deemed "useful"(faster response to queries) before we replace them in the Routing Table in favour of a new peer.
Earlier, an attacker could create too many connections to us causing us to disconnect peers we have in our RT. This would then affect their "usefulness" scores(since we measure usefulness by query response latency) as the query time would have to pay the connection cost for them. Hence, we'd evict them through no fault of theirs, thus giving the attacker space in the RT.
Now, that's harder because you'd have to cause more disconnects to cause a low usefulness score for a a prolonged duration.
However, this could hurt performance as we'll keep slow peers in the RT around for longer too.
We could test all this using the TG. Need to discuss if it's worth it though.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In #651:
We introduced a change to double the usefulness interval i.e. the grace period we give to peers to be deemed "useful"(faster response to queries) before we replace them in the Routing Table in favour of a new peer.
Earlier, an attacker could create too many connections to us causing us to disconnect peers we have in our RT. This would then affect their "usefulness" scores(since we measure usefulness by query response latency) as the query time would have to pay the connection cost for them. Hence, we'd evict them through no fault of theirs, thus giving the attacker space in the RT.
Now, that's harder because you'd have to cause more disconnects to cause a low usefulness score for a a prolonged duration.
However, this could hurt performance as we'll keep slow peers in the RT around for longer too.
We could test all this using the TG. Need to discuss if it's worth it though.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: