-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello All,
My name is Isaac Wilder, and I've been lurking on the list for some time now. Looking at this thread, I thought it might finally be time to introduce myself, and to tell you what I've been working on, with some others, over the past months. I hope I'm not off topic, but I didn't want to go any longer without piping up. I'm part of a fledgling organization called the Free Network Foundation - our aim is to promote the creation of communications infrastructure which is owned and operated collectively. We call this network the Mesh Interface for Network Devices, or MIND, and we envision it as a ubiquitous, resilient, and fault-tolerant communications network which functions even in the absence of other infrastructure. Obviously, this aim is closely aligned with those of the FBF, specifically with the second of Bdale's two objectives. That's why I thought it might be appropriate to respond to this thread. I certainly have no intention to duplicate efforts, but I think that there is room for an FSF, an FBF, and an FNF. If you'd like to know more about the FNF and its mission, feel free to check out www.freenetworkfoundation.org, or read on. Inlines follow. On 06/08/2011 01:17 PM, Bdale Garbee wrote: > Catching up on recent list traffic, it's clear to me that we're > suffering from the fact that "freedombox" means so many different things > to different people. As a member of the foundation's board and chair of > the technical advisory committee, I've spent a lot of time thinking > about what it is that we're actually trying to do, and pondering how to > get from where we are to a useful reference implementation. To that > end, I think it's time to articulate a roadmap, starting with a > statement of objectives for the core that consolidates our shared values > and vision, and provides a framework for turning our is/is-not thinking > in to a manifest of software components to be included in a system > image. Just to be clear, are we talking about a Debian Pure Blend? This makes sense to me, but I haven't seen it come up in conversation yet, and it could be useful to clear up. > > As my own thinking has evolved, I now believe we are pursuing two > related but different top-level objectives. One derives from Eben's > early articulation of motivation that many of us responded to a year or > more ago, the other is driven largely by our collective reaction to > recent global circumstances. Excellent. This gives a clear direction forward. It looks to me like the technology stack needed for these tasks is nearly complete, though a fair degree of engineering work remains with regards to the second goal. The great struggle, as far as I'm concerned, will be getting people to adopt the FreedomBox and to help build out the M.I.N.D. > > We want to provide a way for people to share with others narrowly or > broadly a set of thoughts and media objects hosted on infrastructure > they own themselves and thus have ultimate control over, as an > attractive alternative to such sharing via popular existing services > that provide little control. I've been hacking on diaspora, and it has brought to light some obvious 'don't's. Don't try to stuff everything through http, port 80, and the web. We should be building internet apps, not web apps. This much is probably clear to many, but it's valuable to reiterate. Don't try to make another closed system. Whatever solution we achieve, will be achieved through federation. Don't try to take Facebook head on. Innovate and outmaneuver. Unicast, Multicast, and Broadcast sharing are a must, but are not enough. Offering the same services as Facebook, with smaller network effects and better privacy is not a winning strategy. > > We want to provide a way for people to communicate with each other > privately, minimizing their dependence on service providers, and > hopefully providing some resiliency in the face of service outages. This is where I am focused, primarily. The FreedomBox should incorporate the batman-adv routing protocol. All of the services mentioned above should be designed, ultimately, for use in a manner which is opportunistically peer-to-peer. That is, if a route exists between two nodes that avoids the use of a carrier, that route ought to be taken. If packets must be sent via exisiting infrastructure, then they should be sent through an encrypted tunnel. Still, it is essential that we maximize the likelihood of there exisiting a free route. I'm not sure where else in the thread this conversation came up, but I think someone from Project Byzantium mentioned problems with reinventing DNS. (Love your work, by the way). Here's our take: The FNF is in the middle of the application process for IPv6 address space from ARIN. Hopefully, we'll end up with something like 2^80 addresses - - an unbelievably large amount. We intend to use this space to support the emergence of a free network - one made of FreedomBoxes. So, perhaps we can leave the DNS system as it is, and implement direct addressing on the boxes. That way, we avoid Network Address Translation, and all of the issues that come along with it. We could create an Autonomous System which is peered with the rest of the Internet at various points around the globe - call them FreedomLinks. - From these peering points, access would be distributed via a few levels of community-owned and operated network. Mesh routing algorithms don't scale, so in order for the M.I.N.D. to be global, we're going to need a fractal topology. No attachment to the names, but perhaps it would be something like FreedomLink (regional) to FreedomTower(Neighborhood) to FreedomBox(household). Now, I know that someone is going to tell me that I'm no longer talking about the FreedomBox, and that much is clear, but I do think that we need to think about how the FreedomBox can play its role in the emergence of a truly free network. I guess the point of all this is just to say that mesh routing capabilities are an essential component of the FreedomBox. I've been messing with mesh for a while, and I would say that batman-adv is the clear choice. > > I'd love feedback on whether that resonates well with others on the > list. Do the things you care about fit in, or is there another major > objective that I'm missing? I think you hit the big ones. There is a lot of work to be done in this problem space. I've just dropped out of school to start the Free Network Foundation, and I can't wait to meet and work with you all. In addition to my role at the FNF, I'm looking at starting a for-profit hardware enterprise called Nodal Industries. We would build plug computers for use specifically as FreedomBoxes, and ship them preconfigured. We would also build FreedomLinks and FreedomTowers. I'm looking for collaborators, so if you think that this sounds like a good idea, if you'd like to collaborate, or if you'd just like to talk, please let me know, on-list or off. Obviously, priority number one is the FreedomBox. Everything else hinges on that. That's why I'm so glad to see the conversation starting to move in the direction of a 0.1. Thanks for your time. take care, Isaac Wilder > > > _______________________________________________ > Freedombox-discuss mailing list > Freedombox-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJN8XamAAoJEA8fUKCD77NLpKAH/iTR+CWRKJ3ItF5dbEmprDZI Fd5+hKh5pG8BHzxwrBWdEKnBcqRy1MGX9eIt8iSKaulHv+p/41GGQkE0DRMaT9l0 eye15VDyqDrbKlQYTQUQvBWq7NAkEGQ8RQYcxoSdTTBnJEbCJvLBLVXGZt5fYWqk cns0zXXzxpJxrd91eK4uGt58/t6U2e4fh7ob9NebCeRoJ9UkIhKfoOG2hTO95CH3 5WpuvCTeLkIHz+VH03/eOkOlKWrQ3T07EQje8J+p1kR3FTwtkq6SGh7Ii1n+A5ak xYOBtkSv3I3gl2p1zkSH2qxC0PcqEvH+hGUykN+YYt4+s/V0vtHhYpHODSH7c1s= =kFoN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list Freedombox-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss