Hi Serguei, >>>> This is false. Egypt cut ALL Internet traffic including mobile. Having said >>>> this the only solution is an AD-HOC network built with existing hardware w/ >>>> internet gateways somewhere along the path. This technology has been around >>>> for quite some time. The downside is that it takes an incredible amount of >>>> effort to daisy chain home and office routers in a manner that will "act" >>>> like the Internet.
I am still waiting for the argument why it is false, as you have argued in a previous message, to use mobile devices like phones and tablets in mesh. Especially, since as pointed out here in this discussion, in crowded environments, where most people may carry a mobile device anyway. IMO, some Wi-Fi devices may possibly be lucky and reach the Internet via a fixed router somewhere, such as in a nearby hotel where somebody has also satellite access. Or did we miss-communicate? Last but not least, what are the pros and cons of Wi-Fi vs. Bluetooth? Can you explain? Thanks, Henry On 2/4/11 3:46 PM, "Serguei Osokine" <serguei.osok...@efi.com> wrote: > On Friday, February 04, 2011 David Barrett wrote: >> That's true for piracy *and* communication: neither can get mass >> adoption without seamless internet compatibility. A pirate mesh >> needs to fall back on the internet when it can't find content >> locally, and the communication network should only fall back to >> the mesh when it can't communicate globally. > > Most certainly. All I'm saying that the system that "offers to set up > a DHT or even, ad hoc mesh network -- or even a "sneakernet" -- if it > detects the internet has stopped functioning" most likely won't be > used by anyone if it does not offer any clear advantages even when > the Internet is present. People would deploy it only if they can use > it to stream movies or something even when the Internet is working. > > Besides, if you won't excercise your mesh code even under the normal > conditions, it most likely simply won't work when you'll need it to. > Simply because you'll have the bugs in it that will go undetected if > you won't be testing it all the time in a real-scale deployment. So > I have a feeling that "switch to mesh when SHTF" is simply not a very > realistic scenario, both from software development standpoint and from > the user adoption one. You have to find some compelling reasons why > people would want to install and use it long before that - and when > it turns out that after throwing the Big Switch this app still allows > you to do quite a few things within the mesh coverage area, you will > already have the sizable installed base of instantly operational code. > > In fact, in places like airplanes and beaches you might find yourself > pleasantly surprised even long before the Internet stops functioning. > Sure, it will also help demonstrators to organize flashmobs in Upper > Lampusia - but only if they will already have it working by the moment > when they will actually need it. > > Best wishes - > S.Osokine. > 4 Feb 2011. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: p2p-hackers-boun...@lists.zooko.com > [mailto:p2p-hackers-boun...@lists.zooko.com] On Behalf Of David Barrett > Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 12:37 PM > To: p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com > Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] What we should build for the Egyptian (and other) > protesters > > On 02/04/2011 12:02 PM, Serguei Osokine wrote: >> http://blog.quinthar.com/2011/01/how-piracy-will-hyperlocalize-with-mesh.html >> >> - albeit with software radio instead of the existing wi-fi hardware. >> >> So David, since this mesh hyperlocalization was your own idea, I'm >> not sure - why would you suggest that ther's no compelling value in >> mesh networks, even with normally functioning Internet? Except for >> this pesky ubiquitous wi-fi encryption, of course... > > I'm pro-mesh for local activity. Piracy is best done locally (for both > performance *and* security reasons) so is best done over a mesh. In > other words, mesh piracy can be *better* than internet piracy. > > Global communication, on the other hand, is best done with the internet. > Mesh communication is *worse* than internet communication, at least > over large distances. > > Ultimately, we should use the best tool for the job. The internet is > really frickin' good; we should use it whenever it's available and > preferable. > > That's true for piracy *and* communication: neither can get mass > adoption without seamless internet compatibility. A pirate mesh needs > to fall back on the internet when it can't find content locally, and the > communication network should only fall back to the mesh when it can't > communicate globally. > > -david > > > > >> >> Best wishes - >> S.Osokine. >> 4 Feb 2011. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: p2p-hackers-boun...@lists.zooko.com >> [mailto:p2p-hackers-boun...@lists.zooko.com] On Behalf Of Alen Peacock >> Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 10:55 AM >> To: theory and practice of decentralized computer networks >> Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] What we should build for the Egyptian (and other) >> protesters >> >> I'd always hoped that a global ad-hoc wireless network would spring >> from something like MIT's RoofNet >> (http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/roofnet/doku.php). >> >> There's still a lot of academic research into ad-hoc networks, but I'm >> not aware of anyone really pursuing something like this in the >> commercial space -- anyone been following closer than me? >> >> Alen >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Serguei Osokine >> <serguei.osok...@efi.com> wrote: >>> On Friday, February 04, 2011 wrote: >>>> The only way something like this will take off is if it provides >>>> some *very* compelling value even when the internet is functioning >>>> normally. >>> >>> Two things that spring to mind first are CB-like (as in "CB radio") >>> anonymous contacts with people who are in the vicinity, and the p2p >>> traffic anonymization through local relay chains. 802.11 typically >>> has plenty of spare bandwitdth, being much faster than your normal >>> ISP broadband link, so you can have, say, five-hop relays without >>> any service quality degradation whatsoever. Kind of like local Tor, >>> except that in 802.11 space you're not paying for forwarding traffic >>> with your own service quality, and tracking the ad-hoc MAC-address >>> routing is pretty challenging for an adversary. >>> >>> Of course, 802.11 traffic is routinely encrypted these days, so that >>> might be a bit of a challenge - but this challenge is present in any >>> ad-hoc scenario. >>> >>> Best wishes - >>> S.Osokine. >>> 4 Feb 2011. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: p2p-hackers-boun...@lists.zooko.com >>> [mailto:p2p-hackers-boun...@lists.zooko.com] On Behalf Of David Barrett >>> Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 9:12 AM >>> To: theory and practice of decentralized computer networks >>> Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] What we should build for the Egyptian (and other) >>> protesters >>> >>> On 02/04/2011 08:58 AM, Julian Cain wrote: >>>> >>>> This is false. Egypt cut ALL Internet traffic including mobile. Having said >>>> this the only solution is an AD-HOC network built with existing hardware w/ >>>> internet gateways somewhere along the path. This technology has been around >>>> for quite some time. The downside is that it takes an incredible amount of >>>> effort to daisy chain home and office routers in a manner that will "act" >>>> like the Internet. This is the only solution to a complete >>>> government/corporate takeover. Build a new Internet with existing hardware >>>> that gateways users into the public Internet. >>> >>> Just to clarify, did Egypt cut *domestic* phone and internet, or just >>> *international*? For example, if I had a server inside Egypt, using an >>> Egyptian domain, could users inside Egypt generally access it? >>> >>> >>>> Most home routers can perform this either by extending the network or >>>> bridging networks. >>> >>> The only way something like this will take off is if it provides some >>> *very* compelling value even when the internet is functioning normally. >>> Otherwise it'll always be relegated to being a tiny fringe project. >>> >>> >>> I think a better approach is to prepare a system that uses the internet >>> when it's available (as it almost always is), but then offers to set up >>> a DHT or even, ad hoc mesh network -- or even a "sneakernet" -- if it >>> detects the internet has stopped functioning. >>> >>> For example, imagine that everybody's mobile Twitter device, upon >>> discovering a loss of connection to twitter.com, offered to connect to >>> the "BlueTooth mesh". In high-density environments like a protest, I >>> imagine it could actually work. Then all the laptops that had domestic >>> internet access establish a DHT (perhaps they quietly had it established >>> all along) and bridge the various bluetooth meshes that have sprung up >>> around the nation. And at that time also mention that it can just >>> "manually synchronize" using a USB keydrive or MP3 player. >>> >>> But all this needs to be kept quiet, totally automated, and entirely >>> unobtrusive in normal operation; it can't bother people to even consider >>> these options when the internet is available, because the internet is so >>> much more convenient to use. Nobody will care about any of these >>> features, and they'll be an active *demerit* to the application that >>> *reduces* its adoption -- up until everybody absolutely depends on them. >>> >>> -david >>> _______________________________________________ >>> p2p-hackers mailing list >>> p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com >>> http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers >>> >>> Confidentiality notice: This message may contain confidential information. >>> It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not >>> that person, you should not use this message. We request that you notify us >>> by replying to this message, and then delete all copies including any >>> contained in your reply. Thank you. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> p2p-hackers mailing list >>> p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com >>> http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> p2p-hackers mailing list >> p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com >> http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers >> >> Confidentiality notice: This message may contain confidential information. >> It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not >> that person, you should not use this message. We request that you notify us >> by replying to this message, and then delete all copies including any >> contained in your reply. Thank you. >> _______________________________________________ >> p2p-hackers mailing list >> p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com >> http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers > _______________________________________________ > p2p-hackers mailing list > p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com > http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers > > Confidentiality notice: This message may contain confidential information. > It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not > that person, you should not use this message. We request that you notify us > by replying to this message, and then delete all copies including any > contained in your reply. Thank you. > _______________________________________________ > p2p-hackers mailing list > p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com > http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
