On 03/02/2011 04:57 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > On 2 March 2011 06:37, William Astle <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > On 11-03-01 10:16 PM, Anthony Papillion wrote: > > Like most people. I haven't used UUCP for years. But I've been > thinking > about ways it might be used within the Freedom Box project and, to a > large degree, it makes sense. Specifically, UUCP works very well in > place where there isn't an Internet connection and can be > configured for > email and file exchange. > > What are your thoughts on using UUCP within Freedom Box? > > UUCP might be a reasonable choice for communication between two > nodes that both happen to support it. However, as anything else, it > would be a huge step backward. > > Using UUCP as anything other than a single hop protocol would cause > all sorts of confusion, not least because of bang paths. The fact > that UUCP requires specifying every hop from source to destination > would be unpleasant in the face of rapidly (for some value of > rapidly) changing topology. > > Of course, figuring a way to route messages through the mesh without > user knowledge of the path is a problem that needs to be solved and > that is not an easy problem. > > > Bang paths is precisely the point. In the days when we all ran UUCP > > (a) there was nothing better > (b) servers were large machines in well known fixed locations with well > known phone numbers > (c) even so you often 'booked your slot' on the modem - dialled in at a > particular time to avoid contention > > I strongly believe that the small distributed severlets which will allow > users to reclaim the information network need to be able to operate > without persistent connection to the global network, and need to be able > to propagate messages opportunistically towards the global network. > Natural disaster, civil disruption and just geography can all produce > disconnected islands of network. But also because these serverlets will > now include mobile devices, some devices will inevitably move between > the island and the global network continent, while others will have > intermittent connections onwards. > > So I believe that we (where 'we' is the community of interest looking at > serverlets and the user-controlled information network generally, rather > than the Debian[r][tm] FreedomBox[r][tm] list specifically) need a store > and forward protocol, but we need a store and forward network which can > discover willing relays opportunistically in real time, and which > critically does not trust those relays (since they may be enemy > honeytraps, or may simply never be able to pass the message onwards) but > sends only digitally signed, tamperproof packets. > > Clearly, S+FNGP is not a project for the Debian[r][tm] FreedomBox[r][tm] > list, but nevertheless there are some people on this list who will be > interested. And, for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not proposing a new > project, although I do hope to ensure that things like Tahrir and > Serval, if they develop store and forward technology, do so interoperably > > Cheers > > Simon > > -- > Simon Brooke :: http://www.journeyman.cc/~simon/ > > ;; Stultus in monte
Apologies, I meant to respond to Tracy Reed's earlier post "Store-and-forward is a necessity". This very much reminds me of the work Vint Cerf has been doing on Delay-Tolerant Networks (DTN) as prototyped by the Bytewalla folks. See below for more information including Bytewalla's implementation of the RFC's. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4838 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5050 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay-tolerant_networking http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QgdKd1eWuM&feature=related# There has been an effort to integrate this into a mesh software (HSLS and NetBSD) over at the CUWiN (http://www.cuwin.org) for some time. There have been conversations to do the same with the commotion mesh project (http://tech.chambana.net/projects/commotion) which is using OLSR and OpenWRT. I'd love to hear of folks thoughts or experiences diving into DTN. Cheers, -- Dan _______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
