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.