@RN
@RN_
@T3s|4
@T3s|4_
@eyedeekay
@not_bob_afk
@orignal
@postman
@zzz
%Liorar
%acetone
%ardu
+FreefallHeavens
+HowardPlayzOfAdmin
+Onn4l7h
+Over
+Sh0ck
+Xeha
+bak83
+hk
+moe
+poriori
+profetikla
+qend-irc2p
+r00tobo
+romer
+uop23ip
+waffles
+wew
+xHarr
Arch
BubbRubb
C341
Danny
DeltaOreo
Irc2PGuest10122
Irc2PGuest33339
Irc2PGuest77730
Irc2PGuest77978
Irc2PGuest83998
Leopold_xmpp_
Meow
anontor
duck
halloy13412
mareki2p_
maylay
nnm--
pory
r00tobo[2]
shiver_
simprelay
solidx66_
thetia
u5657
woodwose
zer0bitz_
moe
does the network impose a penalty on many routers sharing an ip?
dr|z3d
potetentially, more so if those routers are floodfills.
moe
and supposing non-floodfills? must some threshold # of routers be met to invoke said penalty?
dr|z3d
if you're running I2P/I2P+, you can see penalized routers at /netdb?f=3
dr|z3d
yeah, there's a threshold for number of routers on same /8, /16, /24 etc.
dr|z3d
which doesn't mean the router(s) in question are necessarily penalized for that alone, there's also a score threshold where you router takes action, namely banning the router(s) in question.
moe
i see. i would hypothetically like to push as much of my traffic through the network as possible, but as the number of machines grows, virtual or otherwise, i wonder how hospitable peers may become
dr|z3d
you can to some degree mitigate the penalties by placing the routers in the same family.
dr|z3d
i2pd doesn't impose any penalties, so your routers will be used, in any event.
moe
that's good to know, i just wonder how much of a consequence it could become as the number of routers increases. anyway, you've given me a lot to think about. thanks, dr|z3d