W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-interledger@w3.org > March 2016

Pathfinding and data collection (left-over question from the workshop)

From: Evan Schwartz <evan@ripple.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 14:41:22 -0500
Message-ID: <CAONA2jVLpm_B8_O3Q5tkfd-Ee0Z_gsomo_Nhv6v2Upbrvt0DMg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
> Wouldn't the connector that does the least risky pathfinding be the
> largest connector with the most data about other network paricipants
> behavior?

ILP reduces the risks posed by faulty connectors down to the following two.
First, a connector can cause a payment to roll back, forcing the sender to
try again with a different path (likely excluding that faulty connector)
and delaying the successful completion of the payment. Second, if the
connectors charge fees, a malicious connector could run off with the fees.
Effective pathfinding approaches/services need to keep track of connectors'
past performance in order to route around bad ones.

As with all pathfinding questions, the best way to approach this depends on
the topology of the network. If there is a relatively closed network with
few connectors operated by the same parties as the ledgers, I wouldn't
expect this to be much of an issue. If it's a very open network with many
connectors to choose from this will be an issue for pathfinding protocols /
services to address -- and that's a problem I'd love for us to have.

Evan Schwartz | Software Architect | Ripple
[image: ripple.com] <http://ripple.com>
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2016 19:42:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 19:42:11 UTC