+devl@ +tom On 14/12/13 22:32, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On 14/12/13 19:20, Chetan Hosmani wrote: >> Hi >> I worked on the transport plugins framework during GSoC 2012 and continued >> till March 2013. >> The changes involved to the core structure of Fred was so much that I never >> managed to get it merged to mainline. My new job does not allow me any time >> to work on it seriously and I was instead relying on GSoC to find us a >> student. This didn't happen. >> After that I haven't been around in the group. >> >> Looking ahead it would be great if someone worked on this project. >> Toad and nextgens spent considerable amount of time to help me design the >> structure of the framework. >> One could either start afresh or take stuff from what I wrote. I am >> interested in helping anyone who is working on it with the code and design. >> Of course toad has the best idea on it :-) >> >> Thanks >> On Dec 14, 2013 9:21 PM, "Tom Sparks" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I am looking into the possibility of paying for sponsored development of >>> Freenet to develop the transport plugins framework and to add delay >>> tolerant network support > Ximin (infinity0) is dealing with this. You might like to talk to him. >
Hello! Yes, I will be looking into this. By a wonderful coincidence I am currently under contract with the Tor Project for work on pluggable transports[1][2][3], which is their take on Freenet's transport plugins. Their work is at a much more advanced stage, with several different transports to bypass several different types of filter (we even have a combiner in progress to chain multiple transports together to defeat multiple types of filter at once), but makes the assumption that the underlying user traffic is assumed to be stream-based. Of course, Freenet is datagram-based. However, in the long term, Tor also wants to support a datagram-based underlying protocol, at which point they will need PTs to also support datagram-based traffic. The best outcome would be if we can unify Freenet transport plugins and Tor pluggable transports, so that both projects can benefit from the shared research that has already been done. Other projects can then benefit from this too, such as GNUnet, Tahoe-LAFS, i2p, etc etc. Right now, I have zero knowledge about the Freenet transport plugin architecture and current status of any efforts, however. Chetan, it would be very very useful if you could send me a well-structured summary of this information. After I have read and understood it, we can then discuss options for further work, including whether it's feasible to proceed with unification with Tor, or whether we should keep things separate for the short term. Tom, it would be very very useful if you could tell me how much funding you have available to sink into this effort, and any logistics / paperwork-type information. You can send this to me by private e-mail if you so wish. Ximin [1] https://www.torproject.org/docs/pluggable-transports.html.en [2] https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/blob/HEAD:/pt-spec.txt [3] https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/PluggableTransports -- GPG: 4096R/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE git://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
