On Friday 09 May 2008 01:23, Daniel Cheng wrote: > On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 2:58 AM, Matthew Toseland > <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > > On Thursday 08 May 2008 01:41, Matthew Toseland wrote: > >> https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=2345 > >> > >> --- > >> A typical domestic internet connection has at most 1Mbps uplink. In some > >> megacities 100Mbps or even 1Gbps is available (symmetric), however it is > >> unlikely that the bandwidth available in most homes will exceed a few > >> megabits in the near future. > >> > >> We could implement darknet sneakernet connections by exchanging USB sticks. > >> E.g. if you meet somebody every day (e.g. a coworker), you could exchange > >> (cheap) 8G sticks, plug them in overnight, and then do the same again the > >> next day. This would produce approx 100K/sec (1Mbps) each way for each > > person > >> you did it with. > >> > >> The performance here imho isn't world-shattering, but nonetheless it's > >> interesting. And it would build the darknet, some of it completely off-grid, > >> work in many places where nothing else does safely, and get us some great > >> headlines. > >> --- > >> > >> IMHO this is something we should seriously consider, if not this year, then > > at > >> least next year during the 0.8 cycle. The main technical prerequisite is > >> token passing load management, unless we implement a completely different > >> load management system for it. True passive requests would help in that > >> they'd make publish/subscribe work much better on this. Even if it's not > >> perfect, it'd be a very interesting way to get people in, and far from being > >> a publicity stunt, it would be of immense long-term value. > >> > > > > Ian is of the view that this should be a separate application based on similar > > principles to Freenet. I'm not. We agree that there are some significant > > issues to deal with. I am of the view that these networks are mutually > > complementary and therefore should talk to each other: Darknet over UDP isn't > > safe in hostile environments, and off-grid darknets a) work much better if > > parts of them are online (certainly we could expect some covert wireless > > links in places, but being able to link to a functional on-grid darknet would > > surely be a benefit; long links are going to be rare on a pure off-grid > > darknet), and b) would be much easier to bootstrap from a working on-grid > > darknet. > > > > W.r.t. code (and to some degree protocol), IMHO most of Freenet's code would > > be useful to a darknet sneakernet implementation: > > - The entire client layer could be reused. The queue is by definition a long > > term structure, Fproxy offers to download stuff in the background and tells > > you when it's done etc. FCP could be reused, although on a > > pure-off-grid-darknet node, clearly they would have to use it in a different > > way to what they do now. > > - Full passive requests would be virtually identical for the two > > implementations. ULPRs could be adapted without too much difficulty. This > > makes FMS etc somewhat feasible, if slow, and anything that can be seen as > > publish/subscribe (e.g. getting new editions of freesites) possible. Full > > passive requests are a long term goal as they would have some interesting > > advantages, but even ULPRs, with sufficient tweaking, may be sufficient to > > make this usable. > > - The link layer would obviously be worthless, except in the IMHO interesting > > case where you have both a darknet connection *and* exchange of flash cards > > going on with a peer. Thus low latency requests such as Frost traffic can go > > over the link, and when you queue a big splitfile, it would fetch the top > > blocks of the pyramid over the link, and then queue the rest to come back > > over the following day's card exchange. > > - Request priorities would be necessary. > > - We probably couldn't reuse the current load limiting/management code. We > > would in all likelihood need token passing. This is something we will need > > long term anyway, of course. > > - Swapping: This is probably the hardest part. Our current strategy involves a > > commit/reveal protocol (4 round trips). This clearly won't work well on a > > pure off-grid darknet. Doing a large part of the work offline will be > > necessary, and to do that a lot of topology may need to be exposed... which > > is bad because it makes life easier for a well-resourced attacker. Also, the > > off-grid network may have to be partially separate in routing terms through > > some sort of tiered routing (look at the network labelling code for something > > related). > > - User interface to transport: We want users to be able to just plug in a > > bunch of USB sticks to a mini-hub, and have Freenet auto-detect that they are > > formatted for it, download from them, and then upload to them, all ready for > > the next day for them to be swapped back. I don't know what native support > > this would require. > > Binary Blobs (.fblob)? > > > Based on the above, IMHO this *might* be feasible, it becomes a lot more > > interesting after some of the features we have planned for 0.7.1/0.8 have > > been implemented, but even then there are some major problems to solve, such > > as swapping. > > I think something like Freenet over HTTP should have higher priority. > There are lots of user behind HTTP/HTTPS-only proxy.
Mostly using it at work when they shouldn't be. :) Well I suppose some students too... But Freenet over HTTP is a conventional application of transport plugins, so shouldn't be too much of a problem once we have them. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080509/4ae41937/attachment.pgp>
