On Tuesday 29 June 2010 01:04:05 Tom Sparks wrote: > --- On Tue, 29/6/10, Matthew Toseland <t...@amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > > On Monday 28 June 2010 05:39:23 Tom > > Sparks wrote: > > > How would a Delay-tolerant network and a Mobile ad hoc > > network change freenet's protocol? > > > > This is really a question for the tech list. > > > > IMHO delay tolerant darknet is a potentially interesting > > area for Freenet. This would involve sneakernet (exchanging > > USB keys), short range high bandwidth transfers between > > mobile devices etc. It would be routed (allowing access to a > > wider range of data than what is on your direct friends' > > nodes). It would rely heavily on passive requests / > > subscriptions, as well as on requests being relayed over a > > period of days, whenever friends connect.. It would likely > > be rather slow, because each hop might take a day or more. > > It could take advantage of fast links where they are > > available however (e.g. underground wifi). It would be > > deployable in places where the Internet is so locked down > > that Freenet doesn't work. About half the devs think this is > > not something Freenet should ever deal with because e.g. it > > would need larger block sizes. But even if it is not Freenet > > it might reuse a lot of Freenet code. And it would have to > > be darknet: Data is only exchanged between people who have > > been pre-established as Friends. That means it is not ad > > hoc. If you are interested in ad hoc / opennet, have a look > > at Haggle, which essentially relies on mobile devices being > > able to broadcast requests for files to everyone in the > > immediate vicinity, with some opportunistic forwarding iirc. > > IMHO this is rather risky, which is why I suggest a delay > > tolerant darknet Freenet system might be possible. > > > I am writing a book/game/role-playing game addon about a fictional network > and freenet is the closes network to my idea, but there are a few differences > > * hash-based IP address
You mean you have an internal, quasi-traceable addressing system? Or that your fictional network can relay TCP connections and other traffic to a hash-based endpoint? IMHO central but anonymous servers (like tor hidden servers) are a bit of advanced functionality that *may* happen eventually on Freenet but will be *SLOW* - and you can do a surprisingly large amount without centralised anything, just with distributed storage, scalable indexes, distributed revision control (git/mercurial), wikis, databases, etc. And they don't make much sense with sneakernet/high latency networking; you have to have an end-to-end network to have anything real time. > * gateways between city network and city-to-city network Agreed this would be needed. In the freenet darknet model, the assumption is that there are a lot of short links and a small number of long links. Long links in an underground scenario (freenet illegal and the public networks heavily restricted e.g. by preventing all p2p connections) might be people commuting long distance and taking data with them, or sending data through the post / a box of DVDs in a truck etc. So there is no single centralised network design - meaning if there are enough of these long connections there is always redundancy and it is not too vulnerable to attack. One difficulty is that carrying data on planes is becoming increasingly hazardous, with customs people having the right to inspect your laptop, force you to give them access, etc, and increasingly exercising this right in the name of copyright (I believe ACTA talks about this, although historically speaking they could always refuse entry if you fail to cooperate). > * underwater network and surface to air network Meaning guerilla wifi, ronja's (home-made free space optical data links) etc? I.e. fixed, hidden, semi-permanent, directional links, and maybe disposable self contained open mesh boxes for mobile stuff - if they are cheap enough; depends how much effort it is to lock down commonly available hardware, if you have to buy everything black market then disposable doesn't really work ... Another interesting possibility - some of the network might be real time but low bandwidth. Maybe even some over-the-regular-internet stuff e.g. steganography faking VoIP calls, games etc. This can be combined with non-real-time links which are much higher bandwidth but also much higher latency, so the requests get relayed quickly but the data trickles back when possible. If hardware isn't too expensive, there are a lot of possibilities, but redeploying stuff even if it's cheap could potentially lead to people being busted. Really it comes down to just how mad the state is. If they are prepared to spend 10% of their GDP having half the population spy on the other half (East Germany), or boil people in oil on random suspicion (Iraq), there are severe limits to what you can do even to keep lines of communication open... But in the short term, everyone uses opennet, which is hideously insecure. There is some reasonable hope IMHO that a huge opennet with some big improvements to security might one day be more secure than some of the alternatives, but we don't fully understand the theory yet (e.g. just how hard is mobile attacker source tracing?) So you can make whatever assumptions you like for the purposes of speculation, and check them in 10 years when it actually happens :) ... And as I've mentioned any hostile state can shut opennet Freenet down rather easily, initially by targeting the seednodes, but also by harvesting and blocking IPs. On the other hand if you are talking about a friendly environment where you can run Freenet openly across the Internet, the situation is completely different. Then you get into more general discussions of throttling, charging and deeper interference on commercial cell nets, mesh networking, user owned infrastructure, the relatively poor scalability of current ad hoc networking protocols (making centralised networks frequently the only practical solution), the relatively low bandwidth of wireless in general, the high cost and inconvenience of multiple directional antennas especially on rooftop mounted nodes, the reasonable hope that as processing power comes down the number of antennas will go up until you can have fourier arrays, and so on (see my blog post a few weeks back about disruptive hardware). Another post you need to read, though it might be a bit technical: [freenet-dev] Fast *and* secure Freenet: Secure bursting and long term requests was Re: Planned changes to keys and UI
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:chat-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
