I'm not entirely sure why this would need to be done outside of Java... Can't we already bind to an infinate number of IP addresses? If we pick IPaddress to bind to that aren't taken, such as 172.100.100.* we shouldbe able to bind to those without an issue.
I agree with the rest of my post, and think that Hamachi-style functionality would be THE killer app, but I don't know what I was smoking when I wrote that part. Of course we would need some sort of .lib per-system to bind to IP addresses. It's trivial to do, and we're already using .libs for native acceleration. I think it's acceptable, considering if it's not there, or can't load, freenet still works, the Hamachi sharing just doesn't.
Please consider it. I know implementing a VPN-style connection is a pain, but since we ALREADY have connections to those people that span NATs, it's not as hard as it otherwise would be. Doing so will ENSURE darknet is VERY popular- There are lots of Filesharing/IM apps- There aren't any OSS which do this (easily).
-Colin
There are OSS apps that do this, it's just that it's difficult to set upas what you are doing is creating a VPN. That would be extremely difficult to do over Java. However, the idea of sharing services out to your darknet peers ispossible, if it is sufficiently useful. Certainly exposing samba sharesor other TCP-based services is possible (if they are allowed to localhost or LAN already).As far as UDP-based games go, isn't it always going to perform better to connect directly to the IP address of your friend? Admittedly you have to password the server, and find their IP address... I wonder if there's something in the idea of dyndns over freenet (as opposed to ARKs; make toad.freenet resolve via a local lookup of the ARK or the connection to toad's current IP address)... we could have the node insert (and keep upto date) lines for your darknet neighbours in hosts.txt. :) It would be possible to tunnel generically as with a VPN, and make itlook like a LAN. However it would be very difficult (it would definitelyrequire external non-java code, and on windows that would have to benasty low level code probably requiring the DDK; on linux it might requireloading the standard kernel VPN module), and it would be slower thandirect connections. In exchange it solves all the authentication problems.Anyone have any more ideas for darknet value-add? On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 01:50:40PM -0400, Colin Davis wrote:I think this is a Wonderful line of thinking. Reward good behavior, rather than punishing bad.I think responding to Jabber commands would go a long way here- It givespeople a Waste-like IM system, which is a great idea. I don't think it's a killer-app, though. What would make Freenet a Killer App, and encourage a LOT of installations, and encourage people to make peers is including Hamachi-style functionality. http://www.hamachi.cc/Essentially, since we already have a connection to them, let us forwardOTHER types of traffic over it.I use iTunes, and so does my friend "Bob". Neither of us can play each other's shared library, since they are on different physical LANs- WhatHamachi lets you do is instantly create a virtual network between everyone's who's connected to one "Network Name". After you did this, you could play Multiplayer Games, do VOIP, etc..Essentially, make it so that you can piggy-back any other program overfreenet's links. So for example, Freenet could create virtual IP addresses locally- 192.168.135.X, where X is number of the friend in the darknetconnection...So, for example, if I had 5 darknet friends- 1- SinnerG 2- Aum 3- Toad 4- Sanity 5- Hobx If I want to Open a Quake3 game with SinnerG, I could connect to 192.168.135.1 If I want to share files with Aum, I could go to smb:\\192.168.135.2If I want to ftp to Toad, I can open a ftp connection to 192.168.135.3Etc. Right now, there is NO OSS app that does this- But with theinfrastructure freenet has, it wouldn't be that hard to implement, andit would make people LOVE darknet connections, but ONLY to their friends, not to people they don't know. In other words- It's perfect. ;) -ColinOn Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 01:47:01PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:Ian Clarke wrote:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I don't think we necessarily have to prevent location swapping on opennet nodes, the destination sampling approach seems prettyrobust,and as the network stabilizes, the number of location swapsshoulddecrease.I don't think this matters either. A much bigger concern is thatthenetwork could end up largely split into two - very few "open" nodestalking to dark ones, and vice versa. For it to work, people whoareopen would also have to want to authenticate people who don'tdirectly.In other words we need to figure out a system of incentives to make it extremely attractive, as well as easy, to add darknet peers. There is absolutely nothing wrong with incentivising the behaviours which willensure the network's survival. We have to do this to some degreein e.g.load balancing, this is no different. Here's my thoughts:1. Opennet takes ages to bootstrap. It has constant connection churn.While this can be a strength, it can also be a weakness. Darknetofferssome level of stability. 2. We can provide some level of local "sharing". We can sharebookmarks,and possibly file indexes, with our direct peers. We can send text messages to them, or files; we can integrate with Jabber perhaps. 3. Significantly increased security. We can have a "trust levels" system. If you have enough true-darknet connections then locally generated requests can be limited to true-darknet connections. 4. More security: I believe it will be extremely difficult toimplementpremix routing in any meaningful and safe way on opennet. Certainly it will require completely different structures. Both premix routing andswap enforcement *require* darknet AFAICS.5. Preferential treatment. True darknet nodes will tend to have fewerconnections and therefore more traffic can be handled from each connection. But we can go beyond this: While we should not misrouterequests we have accepted to our darknet peers, there is nothing wrongwith accepting more requests from them, if they want to send morerequests. Load balancing will then adjust the input load accordingly(more darknet requests allowed, less opennet ones). Any other ways in which darknet is better, or means by which we can favour it without breaking opennet?A problem, in general, with this whole thing is that theincentives forconnecting to people are too small. It is hard to convincepeople thatthey ought to go through the trouble of adding more then aneighbor ortwo, if the only reason is that it is healthy for the network (whentheymay not notice much difference themselves).Yes.When I first envisioned an applications of this type of Darknet, I thought of it much more in the context of a IM/file sharingapplicationthen Freenet. In such a system, people would have have motivation toadd"buddies" (presense, being able to surf their share directly, etc)whichthey don't in Freenet...Why can we not have Thaw share its index files with the adjacentnodes?We could provide FCP support for local messaging.// oskar-- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.-- _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl-- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.-- _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
