Consider what happens when we are the closest node. In some of the actions it is unclear what happens when we are one of the closest nodes to the target key. Do we store values that we publish ourself? Add all cache files to the database. All files in the cache should be added to the database, so that they can be checked to make sure nothing has happened to them. The database would then need a flag to indicate files that are hashed and available, but that shouldn't be added to the DHT. Packages.diff files need to be considered. The Packages.diff/Index files contain hashes of Packages.diff/rred.gz files, which themselves contain diffs to the Packages files previously downloaded. Apt will request these files for the testing/unstable distributions. They need to either be ignored, or dealt with properly by adding them to the tracking done by the AptPackages module. PeerManager needs to download large files from multiple peers. The PeerManager currently chooses a peer at random from the list of possible peers, and downloads the entire file from there. This needs to change if both a) the file is large (more than 512 KB), and b) there are multiple peers with the file. The PeerManager should then break up the large file into multiple pieces of size < 512 KB, and then send requests to multiple peers for these pieces. This can cause a problem with hash checking the returned data, as hashes for the pieces are not known. Any file that fails a hash check should be downloaded again, with each piece being downloaded from different peers than it was previously. The peers are shifted by 1, so that if a peers previously downloaded piece i, it now downloads piece i+1, and the first piece is downloaded by the previous downloader of the last piece, or preferably a previously unused peer. As each piece is downloaded the running hash of the file should be checked to determine the place at which the file differs from the previous download. If the hash check then passes, then the peer who originally provided the bad piece can be assessed blame for the error. Otherwise, the peer who originally provided the piece is probably at fault, since he is now providing a later piece. This doesn't work if the differing piece is the first piece, in which case it is downloaded from a 3rd peer, with consensus revealing the misbehaving peer. Consider tracking security issues with packages. Since sharing information with others about what packages you have downloaded (and probably installed) is a possible security vulnerability, it would be advantageous to not share that information for packages that have known security vulnerabilities. This would require some way of obtaining a list of which packages (and versions) are vulnerable, which is not currently available. Consider adding peer characteristics to the DHT. Bad peers could be indicated in the DHT by adding a new value that is the NOT of their ID (so they are guaranteed not to store it) indicating information about the peer. This could be bad votes on the peer, as otherwise a peer could add good info about itself. Consider adding pieces to the DHT instead of files. Instead of adding file hashes to the DHT, only piece hashes could be added. This would allow a peer to upload to other peers while it is still downloading the rest of the file. It is not clear that this is needed, since peer's will not be uploading and downloading ery much of the time.