There are OSS apps that do this, it's just that it's difficult to set up as 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 is possible, if it is sufficiently useful. Certainly exposing samba shares or 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 up to date) lines for your darknet neighbours in hosts.txt. :) It would be possible to tunnel generically as with a VPN, and make it look like a LAN. However it would be very difficult (it would definitely require external non-java code, and on windows that would have to be nasty low level code probably requiring the DDK; on linux it might require loading the standard kernel VPN module), and it would be slower than direct 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 gives > people 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 forward > OTHER 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- What > Hamachi 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 over > freenet'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 darknet connection... > > > 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:\\192.168.135.2 > If I want to ftp to Toad, I can open a ftp connection to 192.168.135.3 > > Etc. > > Right now, there is NO OSS app that does this- But with the > infrastructure freenet has, it wouldn't be that hard to implement, and > it would make people LOVE darknet connections, but ONLY to their > friends, not to people they don't know. > > > In other words- It's perfect. > > ;) > > -Colin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 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 pretty robust, > > > >and as the network stabilizes, the number of location swaps should > > > >decrease. > > > > > > I don't think this matters either. A much bigger concern is that the > > > network could end up largely split into two - very few "open" nodes > > > talking to dark ones, and vice versa. For it to work, people who are > > > open would also have to want to authenticate people who don't directly. > > > > 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 will > > ensure the network's survival. We have to do this to some degree in 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. Darknet offers > > some level of stability. > > > > 2. We can provide some level of local "sharing". We can share bookmarks, > > 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 to implement > > premix routing in any meaningful and safe way on opennet. Certainly it > > will require completely different structures. Both premix routing and > > swap enforcement *require* darknet AFAICS. > > > > 5. Preferential treatment. True darknet nodes will tend to have fewer > > connections and therefore more traffic can be handled from each > > connection. But we can go beyond this: While we should not misroute > > requests we have accepted to our darknet peers, there is nothing wrong > > with accepting more requests from them, if they want to send more > > requests. 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 the incentives for > > > connecting to people are too small. It is hard to convince people that > > > they ought to go through the trouble of adding more then a neighbor or > > > two, if the only reason is that it is healthy for the network (when > they > > > may 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 sharing application > > > then Freenet. In such a system, people would have have motivation to > add > > > "buddies" (presense, being able to surf their share directly, etc) > which > > > they don't in Freenet... > > > > Why can we not have Thaw share its index files with the adjacent nodes? > > We could provide FCP support for local messaging. > > > > > > // oskar > > -- > > Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org > > Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ > > ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. > > > > > > -- > > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060630/7f53f55b/attachment.pgp>
