Return-Path: william@bourbon.usc.edu
Delivery-Date: Thu Apr 19 07:46:05 2007
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on merlot.usc.edu
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,
	NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=ham version=3.1.3
Received: from bourbon.usc.edu (bourbon.usc.edu [128.125.9.75])
	by merlot.usc.edu (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l3JEk5fU016164
	for <cs551@merlot.usc.edu>; Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:46:05 -0700
Received: from bourbon.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by bourbon.usc.edu (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l3JEk2cv027748
	for <cs551@merlot>; Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:46:02 -0700
Message-Id: <200704191446.l3JEk2cv027748@bourbon.usc.edu>
To: cs551@merlot.usc.edu
Subject: Re: Doubt on GET message 
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:46:02 -0700
From: william@bourbon.usc.edu

Someone wrote:

  > What if the node that originates the GET request is the node that has  
  > that FileID? Should it bother flooding anyway?

It's optional then.  If you separate the flood from the
"special lookup", then you can do these in parallel.
--
Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu <URL:http://merlot.usc.edu/william/usc/>



  On Apr 13, 2007, at 3:03 PM, william@bourbon.usc.edu wrote:
  > Someone wrote:
  >
  >> Given the uniqueness of FileID, if a node finds that he
  >> has the file requested by GET request, is it OK for
  >> this node to stop forwarding this GET request and
  >> just send back the file through GET_R? In other words,
  >> could we say that if there's a match, this will be the
  >> only match in the network so we no longer need to
  >> forward this GET (other nodes can't have this file)?
  >
  > To provide "plausible deniability", you should continue to
  > flood.  (This should also simply your code, slightly.)
  > --
  > Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu <URL:http://merlot.usc.edu/william/ 
  > usc/>