TheConnective/NewNet: An Internet Alternative or Augmentation?
Hackers:
The following discussion took place following Kurkoff's blog post entitled "The Next Net". This chat took place #NewNet on Freenode on January 4, 2011.
**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Tue Jan 4 15:39:45 2011
Jan 04 15:39:45 * Now talking on #NewNet
Jan 04 15:39:45 * Topic for #NewNet is: A new network, by the people, for the people. | Rushkoff even wrote about this! http://www.shareable.net/blog/the-next-net
Jan 04 15:39:45 * Topic for #NewNet set by NetGuy_OP at Tue Jan 4 15:23:05 2011
Jan 04 15:39:51 <elimisteve> NetGuy_OP: Hey :-)
Jan 04 15:40:09 <NetGuy_OP> Welcome :-)
Jan 04 16:02:55 * NetGuy_OP has quit (Quit: NetGuy_OP)
**** ENDING LOGGING AT Tue Jan 4 16:04:53 2011
**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Tue Jan 4 16:04:58 2011
Jan 04 16:04:58 * Now talking on #NewNet
Jan 04 16:04:59 * zelazny.freenode.net sets mode +n #NewNet
Jan 04 16:04:59 * zelazny.freenode.net sets mode +s #NewNet
Jan 04 16:04:59 * services. removes channel operator status from elimisteve
Jan 04 16:04:59 * *** Notice -- TS for #NewNet changed from 1294185897 to 1292126112
Jan 04 16:04:59 * services. sets mode +c #NewNet
Jan 04 16:04:59 * services. sets mode +t #NewNet
Jan 04 16:04:59 * services. sets mode -s #NewNet
Jan 04 16:04:59 * ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) has joined #NewNet
Jan 04 16:04:59 * services. gives channel operator status to ChanServ
Jan 04 16:04:59 * ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) has left #NewNet
Jan 04 16:05:10 -ChanServ- #newnet is already registered to NetGuy_OP.
Jan 04 16:28:39 * NetGuy_OP (~H@ip24-255-34-143.tc.ph.cox.net) has joined #NewNet
Jan 04 16:28:42 * ChanServ gives channel operator status to NetGuy_OP
Jan 04 16:30:55 <elimisteve> Hello again
Jan 04 16:31:11 <elimisteve> I sent a tweet out to 3 people telling them about this
Jan 04 16:31:20 <NetGuy_OP> Cool
Jan 04 16:31:37 <NetGuy_OP> I'm OK with that. The only way something like this would work is if there are enough people doing it :-)
Jan 04 16:32:09 <elimisteve> Definitely
Jan 04 16:32:35 <elimisteve> Do you do any programming?
Jan 04 16:32:42 <elimisteve> I'm trying to think of what all we would need to pull this off...
Jan 04 16:33:11 <elimisteve> I'm loving Go (a language google made just over a year ago), which is literally about 10x faster than Python
Jan 04 16:33:23 <elimisteve> Clojure is awesome but I can't say I "know" it
Jan 04 16:34:39 <elimisteve> Think it'd be better to have people use old crappy computers with NewNet software installed, or use a popular home router (like the Linksys you mentioned earlier)?
Jan 04 16:34:51 <elimisteve> (Clojure is fast too which is why I mention it)
Jan 04 16:35:46 <elimisteve> Can't beat C and C++ but it can be a pain to write anything substantial. Just takes too long
Jan 04 16:36:56 <NetGuy_OP> I spent years as a programmer
Jan 04 16:36:59 <elimisteve> http://www.open-mesh.org/wiki/2010-12-12-batman-v-status-update
Jan 04 16:37:12 <NetGuy_OP> Multiple BASIC variants, Pascal, C, half a dozen assembly languages...
Jan 04 16:37:19 <NetGuy_OP> I've touched both Ruby and Python
Jan 04 16:37:28 <elimisteve> I see
Jan 04 16:37:30 <NetGuy_OP> Yeah, BATMAN looks pretty nice.
Jan 04 16:39:40 <NetGuy_OP> I'd have to look at its code size.
Jan 04 16:40:13 <NetGuy_OP> I would hope that any protocol I'd develop or design would fit in pretty much anything, from a Commodore 64 to an iPhone to an embedded wifi access point to a full-blown Mac or PC
Jan 04 16:41:21 <elimisteve> For sure, I'm just thinking about the most convenient way to set it up
Jan 04 16:41:56 <elimisteve> for others
Jan 04 16:42:13 <elimisteve> Hmmm... what about some kind of OpenWRT/DD-WRT plugin?...
Jan 04 16:45:12 <elimisteve> Making it mobile would be _awesome_; there are people will cell phones every 50 feet but there will/may never be that many NewNet router/desktop nodes
Jan 04 16:48:04 <NetGuy_OP> But the phones would BE routers.
Jan 04 16:48:08 <NetGuy_OP> Every node is a router.
Jan 04 16:48:22 <NetGuy_OP> But yeah...I like the phone idea a lot
Jan 04 16:49:17 <elimisteve> I know some wireless technologies transmit constantly and are a huge battery drain, while some fire in bursts and conserve much better, but I don't know which does what.
Jan 04 16:49:35 <elimisteve> Yeah I know they would be! That's what's so cool about it.
Jan 04 16:51:51 <NetGuy_OP> Yeah. You want the node to be active all the time, but then you have to take into account things like power.
Jan 04 16:51:57 <NetGuy_OP> There are power-aware routing protocols.
Jan 04 16:52:09 <NetGuy_OP> Some of that would probably need to be included in this, too
Jan 04 16:52:13 <elimisteve> Good
Jan 04 16:52:24 <NetGuy_OP> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ad_hoc_routing_protocols
Jan 04 16:52:27 <NetGuy_OP> Enjoy :-P
Jan 04 16:52:38 <NetGuy_OP> Lots there, if you've not read much about ad-hoc routing protocols before
Jan 04 16:52:44 * shiftctrlesc (40e72e80@gateway/web/freenode/ip.64.231.46.128) has joined #NewNet
Jan 04 16:54:06 <NetGuy_OP> Hi shiftctrlesc
Jan 04 16:55:09 <elimisteve> hey there
Jan 04 16:55:31 <elimisteve> Are you by chance Dane Ward, shiftctrlesc?
Jan 04 17:00:25 * santabarbarian (41a3cb02@gateway/web/freenode/ip.65.163.203.2) has joined #NewNet
Jan 04 17:00:40 <santabarbarian> sup guys
Jan 04 17:01:22 <NetGuy_OP> Howdy santabarbarian
Jan 04 17:02:07 <santabarbarian> so from your website it seems you try to meet on a regular basis?
Jan 04 17:02:17 <santabarbarian> in goleta?
Jan 04 17:02:24 <NetGuy_OP> Oops. That for the sbhackspace channel?
Jan 04 17:03:11 <elimisteve> santabarbarian: Hey there
Jan 04 17:03:26 <elimisteve> We meet once a week yes
Jan 04 17:03:27 <santabarbarian> yeah it is
Jan 04 17:03:36 <elimisteve> I'm about to announce our Saturday meeting
Jan 04 17:03:40 <elimisteve> we're in #sbhackerspace :-)
Jan 04 17:03:46 <elimisteve> but the idea we're talking about here
Jan 04 17:03:48 <santabarbarian> AH
Jan 04 17:03:51 <elimisteve> well, this is the channel for that
Jan 04 17:03:53 <elimisteve> :-)
Jan 04 17:03:58 <elimisteve> I'm the only other guy from SB here but
Jan 04 17:04:10 <santabarbarian> alright, well i'm interested in both =)
Jan 04 17:04:15 <elimisteve> everyone here is interested in this (hopefully mobile) mesh ad-hoc network
Jan 04 17:04:19 <elimisteve> Excellent
Jan 04 17:04:42 <elimisteve> you can type /join #sbhackerspace to join our channel
Jan 04 17:04:55 <elimisteve> then you'll be in both
Jan 04 17:07:54 <shiftctrlesc> hey ... I am the connective
Jan 04 17:09:06 <elimisteve> Excellent! Thanks for joining. What is the technical/network model you have in mind for TheConnective?
Jan 04 17:15:07 <shiftctrlesc> I don't think there's going to be a universal one size fits all technical solution. Different environments will require different technologies. ... ie: urban, suburban, or rural, different countries, different cultures. But the goal in all settings will be to grow a distributed architecture to replace the decentralized telco systems.
Jan 04 17:19:00 <elimisteve> NetGuy_OP's comment was interesting I thought:
Jan 04 17:19:36 <NetGuy_OP> Which comment? I make a lot of interesting comments. :-P
Jan 04 17:20:01 <elimisteve> I'm of the opinion that this new network should use multiple possible transmission channels—modems, ad-hoc Wifi, optical links, and even things like USB sticks and CDs that could be mailed
Jan 04 17:20:14 <NetGuy_OP> Ah, that comment
Jan 04 17:20:50 <NetGuy_OP> I've got even weirder transmission channels, like paper-based data storage which gets snail mailed. :-P
Jan 04 17:21:34 <NetGuy_OP> But yeah
Jan 04 17:21:35 <elimisteve> shiftctrlesc: What are the next steps for you?
Jan 04 17:21:45 <NetGuy_OP> The network shouldn't rely on just one kind of channel.
Jan 04 17:21:46 <elimisteve> shiftctrlesc: what's the main reason you launched the website?
Jan 04 17:23:39 <elimisteve> What should we do next? shiftctrlesc Is there a TheConnective GitHub account yet?
Jan 04 17:24:35 <shiftctrlesc> ok let me back up and try to hit all of these ...
Jan 04 17:25:02 <elimisteve> Thanks
Jan 04 17:28:08 <elimisteve> Me and another SBHX member are learning how to make Android apps now. If we want this network to be mobile, having a free Android app would certainly help in that endeavor
Jan 04 17:29:11 <shiftctrlesc> re: multiple channels ... a resounding yes. I've been exploring combinations of wifi, fiber and free space optics. They all have their advantages and disadvantages. I wish there was a one box solution to all this and I keep looking for it but i don't think it exists. Was speaking with a remarkable woman in rural uk that has grown some community owned networks around her farm and nearby village. She's put together a wifi mesh n
Jan 04 17:29:50 <shiftctrlesc> She swears by fiber now and doesn't want anything to do with wifi because of ongoing troubleshooting and technical difficulties.
Jan 04 17:30:55 <elimisteve> So does buying up dark fibre make sense for this (as I mentioned on Twitter)?
Jan 04 17:32:38 <shiftctrlesc> it may ... the only concern would be inheriting a decentralized architecture which wouldn't be resilient against censorship, etc..
Jan 04 17:32:53 <elimisteve> NetGuy_OP: any ideas for exactly where and how this network should connect to the Internet?
Jan 04 17:33:12 <NetGuy_OP> It shouldn't.
Jan 04 17:33:20 <shiftctrlesc> :)
Jan 04 17:33:56 <NetGuy_OP> You can't trust traffic on the Internet. Or at least you won't be able to for long.
Jan 04 17:33:59 <NetGuy_OP> This should be a separate net.
Jan 04 17:34:22 <NetGuy_OP> That's why I said earlier that even using tunnels through the Internet to route this network's traffic shouldn't be done, out of principle.
Jan 04 17:34:28 <elimisteve> Well it could be separate but with NewNet-to-Internet gateways
Jan 04 17:34:55 <elimisteve> Riding on top of the internet would of course be more convenient than creating a completely separate one, but if censorship is what we're trying to fight then we're back stuck with high-latency darknets like Tor and Freenet
Jan 04 17:34:58 <shiftctrlesc> I think there's too much value on the existing internet to ignore it or not connect to it.
Jan 04 17:35:05 <elimisteve> I agree
Jan 04 17:35:37 <NetGuy_OP> And all I have to do to take down Tor is turn off DNS, or unplug some routers somewhere.
Jan 04 17:35:58 <NetGuy_OP> And I think the value I would want for this new network is a different KIND of value than what the Internet provides.
Jan 04 17:36:07 <NetGuy_OP> This isn't a replacement. It's just another option.
Jan 04 17:36:28 <NetGuy_OP> It's so all of our interpersonal telecommunications eggs aren't in one netbasket. :-)
Jan 04 17:36:30 <elimisteve> shiftctrlesc: What are the incentives for non-geeks to be a part of this new network?
Jan 04 17:36:35 <elimisteve> any, at first?
Jan 04 17:37:14 <NetGuy_OP> Probably not, unless they're geeky about: tech, mesh nets, routing, net neutrality, freedom, etc.
Jan 04 17:37:17 <shiftctrlesc> i agree, connectives will create new kinds of value that don't exist on today's internet.
Jan 04 17:37:17 <santabarbarian> i think of it as more of a failover in case a certain portion of the censored network becomes unavailable
Jan 04 17:37:26 <NetGuy_OP> It wouldn't necessarily be only computer geeks
Jan 04 17:37:35 <NetGuy_OP> That's one use, yes, santabarbarian
Jan 04 17:37:55 <elimisteve> santabarbarian: using the Internet to at least provide Connective/NewNet network continuity sounds good...
Jan 04 17:38:04 <santabarbarian> if the regular DNS servers dont list what we're looking for...then our network must provide a second route
Jan 04 17:38:24 <santabarbarian> DNS is mostly invisible to end users now, and so should it be with our net net
Jan 04 17:38:27 <elimisteve> well we should try to use our own as primary not secondary, yes?
Jan 04 17:38:32 <santabarbarian> new*
Jan 04 17:38:42 <NetGuy_OP> Oh.
Jan 04 17:38:45 <NetGuy_OP> And I'm anti-TCP/IP
Jan 04 17:38:55 <santabarbarian> too many flaws?
Jan 04 17:38:59 <shiftctrlesc> once the connective infrastructure is in place in a community, local communication will be near zero cost - this will open up radical new possibilities.
Jan 04 17:39:03 <NetGuy_OP> It's a 30-year-old protocol. We can do better. Better has been done.
Jan 04 17:39:10 <santabarbarian> even in 6? lol
Jan 04 17:39:35 <elimisteve> shiftctrlesc: hmmmm... that's an enticing vision -- just get a bunch of people using it _in one area_ first
Jan 04 17:39:48 <elimisteve> instead of worrying about contiguity between remote regions without using the Internet
Jan 04 17:40:11 <shiftctrlesc> that's the idea ... one community at a time, growing organically.
Jan 04 17:40:34 <shiftctrlesc> the connective isn't something that can be BUILT it has to grow.
Jan 04 17:40:37 <elimisteve> the apartment that SBHX currently meets in is about 1 mile from UC Santa Barbara...
Jan 04 17:40:39 <elimisteve> I see
Jan 04 17:40:58 <NetGuy_OP> That's why I considered long-distance transmission channels like modems and physical carriers (iPhones, for example).
Jan 04 17:42:43 <santabarbarian> dont those have to have a cell tower in LOS and have a range of just a few miles?
Jan 04 17:43:13 <NetGuy_OP> iPhones?
Jan 04 17:43:17 <NetGuy_OP> No, no.
Jan 04 17:43:19 <NetGuy_OP> I mean, yes, but...
Jan 04 17:43:28 <NetGuy_OP> They also have 802.11.
Jan 04 17:43:40 <NetGuy_OP> So, if they can get data access, they can carry and route traffic.
Jan 04 17:43:53 <NetGuy_OP> My idea isn't a real-time network. It's a store-and-forward network.
Jan 04 17:44:50 <NetGuy_OP> You write an email or a forum message, and it gets routed to its destination, hop by hop.
Jan 04 17:44:58 <elimisteve> That sounds like what we'd be forced to do if the network doesn't start out localized like shiftctrlesc is envisioning
Jan 04 17:44:59 <santabarbarian> no i get it
Jan 04 17:45:02 <santabarbarian> i was just thinking
Jan 04 17:45:10 <NetGuy_OP> Ah, OK
Jan 04 17:46:20 <NetGuy_OP> I should really just keep writing up my technical doc.
Jan 04 17:46:22 <santabarbarian> is it possible for a regular guy to build a cell tower legally?
Jan 04 17:46:28 <NetGuy_OP> Right now, it's just a collection of notes
Jan 04 17:46:41 <shiftctrlesc> re: cel phone tower .... the spectrum is licensed
Jan 04 17:46:44 <elimisteve> santabarbarian: if we can get one node running at UCSB and another at the hackerspace, everyone in IV and on campus could connect!!!
Jan 04 17:46:49 <elimisteve> if it's wireless
Jan 04 17:47:21 <elimisteve> shiftctrlesc: but OpenBTS is legal and uses GSM, yes?
Jan 04 17:47:57 <santabarbarian> like, if we grabbed a HAM radio tower, hacked it to be a massive wifi (our own custom spectrum of course) and plopped a triangle of them in a 3 mile radius.
Jan 04 17:48:00 <santabarbarian> would that work?
Jan 04 17:48:27 <santabarbarian> as a node?
Jan 04 17:48:49 <santabarbarian> i'll have to look at openbts
Jan 04 17:49:10 <elimisteve> one of the SBHX guys is a licensed HAM operator (swiss)
Jan 04 17:49:44 <elimisteve> our hardware people know quite a bit (I'm all software)
Jan 04 17:50:22 <NetGuy_OP> I was a ham
Jan 04 17:50:26 <elimisteve> swiss also built two types of antennae; I have no idea what the range is
Jan 04 17:50:28 <NetGuy_OP> You can't really use that for this, I don't think.
Jan 04 17:50:44 <NetGuy_OP> There are VERY strict content restrictions on amateur radio transmissions.
Jan 04 17:51:02 <NetGuy_OP> Say "fuck" in an email and transmit it over amateur radio, and you've broken Federal law
Jan 04 17:51:03 <elimisteve> Not pure HAM, I know. santabarbarian said a 'hacked' tower
Jan 04 17:52:35 <NetGuy_OP> I don't know anything about OpenBTS, but it wouldn't surprise me if, to transmit on cell frequencies, you'd need a license.
Jan 04 17:52:39 <NetGuy_OP> That's a point of failure.
Jan 04 17:53:02 <NetGuy_OP> License-free operation should be a given.
Jan 04 17:54:47 <shiftctrlesc> the problem with wifi is it was never intended to connect entire communities. Low bandwidth, low range etc. And wimax - which *is* designed to connect neighborhoods conveniently operates in the licensed spectrum.
Jan 04 17:55:04 <santabarbarian> openbts does look like it has some potential
Jan 04 17:55:14 <santabarbarian> so we need to make our own wimax
Jan 04 17:55:22 <elimisteve> OpenBTS is used for cell service at Burning Man
Jan 04 17:55:34 <santabarbarian> this guy did it with a droid phone
Jan 04 17:55:34 <santabarbarian> http://www.tombom.co.uk/blog/?p=144
Jan 04 17:55:55 <elimisteve> yeah the Droid is on GSM so it should be possible
Jan 04 17:56:28 <elimisteve> well, it uses GSM I should say
Jan 04 17:58:30 <shiftctrlesc> thanks for the openbts tip ... it's something i haven't explored yet.
Jan 04 17:59:16 <elimisteve> From Wikipedia: http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/EPCOS/B64290P37X830/?qs=sGAEpiMZZMukHu%252bjC5l7YStcl3Yjy/M9YOMxizEd4bQ%3d
Jan 04 17:59:21 <elimisteve> oops wrong link
Jan 04 17:59:27 <elimisteve> "WiMAX is a long range system, covering many kilometres, that uses licensed or unlicensed spectrum to deliver connection to a network, in most cases the Internet."
Jan 04 17:59:43 <elimisteve> "...uses licensed _or unlicensed_ spectrum"
Jan 04 17:59:50 <shiftctrlesc> interesting.
Jan 04 18:00:11 <santabarbarian> very
Jan 04 18:00:18 <elimisteve> Maybe we can connect via WiMax from the unlicensed part??? That'd be great...
Jan 04 18:00:34 <santabarbarian> that may end up being the most cost effective medium for data transmission
Jan 04 18:02:30 <santabarbarian> unfortunately, that's only the physical layer....we still have to figure out the other layers of the stack. amirite Netguy?
Jan 04 18:02:42 <elimisteve> "There are a number of products that purport to be "WiMAX" that operate in license-exempt spectrum, especially the 5.x GHz bands, and even some that operate in the 4.9 GHz public safety band. But such products are not true WiMAX."
Jan 04 18:02:56 <elimisteve> NetGuy_OP: ad-hoc routing protocols to the rescue?
Jan 04 18:03:24 <elimisteve> (previous quote from http://www.unlicensedwimax.com/)
Jan 04 18:03:59 <elimisteve> "Some of the most commonly used license free frequencies in the US are at 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz, 5.2/5.3/5.8 GHz, 24 GHz and above 60 GHz. Other spectrum just now gaining tracton is a small band at 3.65 GHz (with specific different rules set for its use). Much of the spectrum above 60 GHz (millimeter wave band) is unlicensed. There is also a band at 4.9 GHz which is allocated for public safety use. "
Jan 04 18:04:03 <elimisteve> Link: http://www.wimax.com/wimax-regulatory/what-is-unlicensed-spectrum-what-frequencies-are-they-in
Jan 04 18:04:44 <shiftctrlesc> http://www.unlicensedwimax.com/
Jan 04 18:04:58 <NetGuy_OP> Hrm. I'd have to look at all this stuff.
Jan 04 18:05:15 <NetGuy_OP> It's all just physical layer stuff. We could run whatever protocols we wanted (including a custom one) over it, probably
Jan 04 18:05:42 <santabarbarian> mayyyybe. but i'm thinking that may not be needed initially. maybe it's as simple as creating a failover DNS entry to a public cloud server that remembers the IPs of the parts of the internet that were censored out.
Jan 04 18:05:46 <elimisteve> "Typically, the power allotment for each license free radio is much lower than that enjoyed by licensed spectrum holders. One real exception to this rule is the 3.65 GHz band, which allows up to 1 Watt per MHz of power output, higher than unlicensed spectrum. Technically the 3.65 GHz band is licensed, but the cost and rules defining the band and its use are so modest that it is effectively unlicensed spectrum. This ba
Jan 04 18:05:46 <elimisteve> nd is already proving to deliver NLOS capability with very solid bandwidth capability. Power allotment largely relegates license-free providers to LOS coverage only."
Jan 04 18:05:47 <shiftctrlesc> the question is whether the power of Wimax would be decreased within the unlicensed spectrums.
Jan 04 18:05:53 <shiftctrlesc> :)
Jan 04 18:06:06 <elimisteve> ah right...
Jan 04 18:07:50 <santabarbarian> hmm LOS can be worked around
Jan 04 18:08:19 <santabarbarian> if i just had a mountain high enoguh in the middle of SB
Jan 04 18:08:34 <santabarbarian> Oprah's house maybe?
Jan 04 18:10:29 <elimisteve> http://www.goingwimax.com/the-increasing-opportunities-for-unlicensed-wimax-5804/
Jan 04 18:11:17 <elimisteve> "While often positioned as a mobile broadband technology that operates in licensed bands, 802.16e WiMAX can also support fixed and nomadic services, and vertical applications in a range of frequencies up to 6 GHz, including license-exempt bands such as the 5.x GHz band and, in the US, the lightly licensed 3.65 GHz band."
Jan 04 18:11:42 <elimisteve> Any common devices with an antenna we could take out and put in something else that support these frequencies?
Jan 04 18:13:30 <elimisteve> "Brazilian WISP Selects Proxim Wireless’ Unlicensed WiMAX and Wireless Backhaul to Deploy Broadband in 10 Cities"
Jan 04 18:13:33 <elimisteve> http://www.pitchengine.com/proximwireless/brazilian-wisp-selects-proxim-wireless-unlicensed-wimax-and-wireless-backhaul-to-deploy-broadband-in-10-cities/53635/
Jan 04 18:14:58 <elimisteve> $1,549: MeshMAX 5054W; supporting 5GHz Unlicensed WiMAX; 5GHz and 2.4 GHz Client Access (http://www.moonblinkwifi.com/pd-meshmax-5054w-supporting-5ghz-unlicensed-wimax-5ghz-and-24-ghz-client-access-world---9201-wd0.cfm)
Jan 04 18:15:04 <elimisteve> that's a bit steep
Jan 04 18:18:45 <santabarbarian> and it seems by going wimax we'd become an ISP ourselves, hehe
Jan 04 18:18:53 <santabarbarian> not that there's anything wrogn with that
Jan 04 18:19:18 <elimisteve> yeah I was thinking about that...
Jan 04 18:19:22 <NetGuy_OP> Well, I would hope not.
Jan 04 18:19:26 <NetGuy_OP> "Internet Service Provider"
Jan 04 18:19:29 <NetGuy_OP> :-(
Jan 04 18:19:30 <NetGuy_OP> lol
Jan 04 18:19:49 <shiftctrlesc> exactly ... connectivity needs to be life breathing.
Jan 04 18:20:17 <shiftctrlesc> *like(
Jan 04 18:20:21 <NetGuy_OP> Remember: the Internet is based on a hierarchical model. You don't want that for this. You want each and every node to be BBS, mail server, and router, all in one. And they all talk to each other equally.
Jan 04 18:20:40 <shiftctrlesc> yes ... an architecture of equals.
Jan 04 18:22:26 <NetGuy_OP> Yep. A flat, ad-hoc mesh network
Jan 04 18:23:17 <elimisteve> Agreed
Jan 04 18:23:24 <NetGuy_OP> And that places limitations on traffic (hence the store-and-forward part), and on things like mail format (the addresses have to contain all the info needed to route the message, etc.).
Jan 04 18:23:57 <elimisteve> NetGuy_OP: you mean like contain the IP not just the domain name so you don't need DNS?
Jan 04 18:24:06 <NetGuy_OP> I was thinking about that part the other night. There are lots of potential node address possibilities.
Jan 04 18:24:14 <NetGuy_OP> elimisteve: In a way, yeah
Jan 04 18:24:27 <NetGuy_OP> I was thinking about geographically-aware routing.
Jan 04 18:24:45 <NetGuy_OP> So addresses using things like Maidenhead Grid Squares. Or lat/long. Or postal zip codes. etc.
Jan 04 18:25:01 <elimisteve> Sounds like a problem for anonymity
Jan 04 18:25:06 <NetGuy_OP> With the node number itself being a long random string (6 or 8 digits, maybe).
Jan 04 18:25:08 <shiftctrlesc> re: dns It's worth reading about http://www.netsukuku.org/?pag=about
Jan 04 18:25:31 <NetGuy_OP> For example:
Jan 04 18:25:36 <NetGuy_OP> Darin@DM42:234864
Jan 04 18:26:12 <NetGuy_OP> That's a grid square, plus the node address within that grid square. The node address is random, and should be unique within the region (the grid square).
Jan 04 18:26:29 <NetGuy_OP> (oh, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maidenhead_grid_locator )
Jan 04 18:27:01 <shiftctrlesc> very interesting ... have you seen that in practice?
Jan 04 18:27:03 <NetGuy_OP> That SHOULD get the packet near me. If someone in my same square gets that message, it can say, "Hey! He's really close to me!" and can hopefully route the packet to me.
Jan 04 18:27:22 <NetGuy_OP> But what about: Darin@Tucson,AZ,US:234864
Jan 04 18:27:31 <NetGuy_OP> So, that gets the packet to the city.
Jan 04 18:27:35 <NetGuy_OP> That's helpful.
Jan 04 18:27:46 <NetGuy_OP> Or: Darin@1-520:234864
Jan 04 18:28:03 <NetGuy_OP> That's the country code and area code. If the packet reaches another node in this area code, it can probably get it to me, especially via modem.
Jan 04 18:28:15 <NetGuy_OP> Postal code? Darin@85719:234864
Jan 04 18:28:29 <NetGuy_OP> Lat/long? Darin@-110.95,32.25:234864
Jan 04 18:28:38 <NetGuy_OP> You could actually calculate distance with the last one!
Jan 04 18:28:50 <NetGuy_OP> Or how about this?
Jan 04 18:29:12 <NetGuy_OP> You're not sure what routes or data channel types the packet will go through. Optical links? Phone lines? Carrier pigeon? No clue.
Jan 04 18:29:16 <NetGuy_OP> So, give ALL the options: Darin@[DM42MF;Tucson,AZ,US;1-520;85719;-110.95,32.25]:234864
Jan 04 18:29:36 <NetGuy_OP> Or some subset of that. Whatever you think the minimum needed might be.
Jan 04 18:29:43 <elimisteve> I don't want to inflate your ego but that definitely sounds cool.
Jan 04 18:29:46 <santabarbarian> re: location awareness I dont think a network birthed out of a demand for privacy will be entirely happy about location-aware apps/infrastructure.
Jan 04 18:29:47 <NetGuy_OP> Notice the node number 234864 didn't change.
Jan 04 18:30:09 <shiftctrlesc> @ santabarbarian :)
Jan 04 18:30:10 <elimisteve> specifying multiple paths or channels
Jan 04 18:30:10 <NetGuy_OP> And there can be another node 234864, as long as it isn't in the same region.
Jan 04 18:30:17 <NetGuy_OP> Oh, my ego's plenty big. But thanks. ;-)
Jan 04 18:30:29 <elimisteve> Yeah that's my point :-)
Jan 04 18:30:35 <NetGuy_OP> santabarbarian: True. I'm not a fan of lat/long for that reason.
Jan 04 18:30:46 <NetGuy_OP> But grid squares? Area codes? Yeah, that's fine.
Jan 04 18:30:49 <NetGuy_OP> It's a balance.
Jan 04 18:31:08 <NetGuy_OP> You want there to be enough info to get the packet to its destination.
Jan 04 18:31:28 <NetGuy_OP> And you don't want huge lookup tables and crap like that. The routing protocol should be able to figure it out.
Jan 04 18:32:04 <elimisteve> Area codes? At first someone may be the only user in their area code. I think physical location shouldn't play a role in the routing.
Jan 04 18:32:17 <santabarbarian> yes you do, but that can be any arbitrary code, and probably should be some cryptic and random code. maybe even a rotating code for routable anonymity
Jan 04 18:32:22 <elimisteve> Yes having a huge lookup table isn't scalable
Jan 04 18:32:26 <NetGuy_OP> There are reasons for and against location awareness
Jan 04 18:32:38 <NetGuy_OP> I don't see this as being anonymous.
Jan 04 18:32:57 <NetGuy_OP> I'm not sure that I would want to go that far with it, to be honest.
********
Part 2 can be found here.
