Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments

Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es> Mon, 11 April 2016 08:31 UTC

Return-Path: <jsaldana@unizar.es>
X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E6C412E901 for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 01:31:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.231
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.231 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Oq2QmaMC46Wu for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 01:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vortiz.unizar.es (vortiz.unizar.es [155.210.11.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0924712E902 for <gaia@irtf.org>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 01:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from flumen.unizar.es ([155.210.11.58] helo=mail.unizar.es) by vortiz.unizar.es with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <jsaldana@unizar.es>) id 1apXFO-0002GM-FU; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 10:31:02 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 10:30:57 +0200
From: Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>
To: gaia@irtf.org, future@systemli.org
Organization: University of Zaragoza
In-Reply-To: <ee014af6a8b3e085b427caac65547999@systemli.org>
References: <ee014af6a8b3e085b427caac65547999@systemli.org>
Message-ID: <5d76a50d6f49977440e927a742aa27e5@unizar.es>
X-Sender: jsaldana@unizar.es
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.8.5
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gaia/VgNF3q75MVKUolpbmI8GIzlm23I>
Subject: Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments
X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All <gaia.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/gaia>, <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gaia/>
List-Post: <mailto:gaia@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia>, <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 08:31:08 -0000

Hi,

I have had a look to the web sites you suggest in your e-mail. The 
question is that I think they are not about Alternative Networks, but 
about alternative protocols or applications. I mean, none of them is 
about deploying new physical infrastructure, but about software. The 
draft is about deploying new networks, with physical devices, links, 
antennae, etc.

Do you think this is true for all the links you have sent?

Thanks in advance,

Jose

El 2016-04-06 13:33, future@systemli.org escribió:
> Dear authors of "Alternative Network Deployments: Taxonomy, 
> characterization,
>                      technologies and architectures
>            draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-04"
> 
> I'd find it useful if your draft provided a perspective towards future
> Alternative Networks.
> I am thinking of software projects that have a strong emphasis on
> privacy and security in their network design.
> After Snowden it is only a logical next step in order to meet the
> requirement of providing "freedom to communicate without interference,
> or interception" to explore and develop this kind of networks for
> public use.
> So these projects are for example
> 
> * GNUnet [1]
> * Maidsafe [2]
> * Net2o [3]
> * Briar [4]
> * Sneakernet aDTN with its client Timberdoodle [5]
> 
> Some of these have developed privacy aware routing algorithms and
> decentral naming systems for about a decade now.
> So in contrast to the existing Alternative Networks they provide
> meta-data-protection (implications of having none: [13])
> by design as well as the encryption of contents.
> What makes them special is that some of them (the first three) are
> alternative internet protocol stacks which don't depend on servers or
> central authorites. They are fully distributed and decentralized. So
> they not only have the potential to provide a free and open
> communication means to its users but also one that backs up their
> civil rights by being censorship resistant and by keeping its users'
> communication confidental and secure - more than the current internet
> does. [6],[7]
> 
> It is only a matter of time that they include the capability to do
> mesh networking.
> GNUnet has its own module for this: CADET [8][9].
> GNUnet has been packed for OpenWRT half a year ago [10]
> It fits on a 8 MB Router and possibly on a 4 MB one, but still needs
> improvements to "dance the wifi" [11].
> Maidsafe is rewritten in Rust- a security aware language. This rewrite
> should fit well on embedded devices.
> When Rust is ported to OpenWRT also Maidsafe can run its first
> experiments with open-wireless-networks.
> Net2o is built to be lightweight as well. It's developer claims that
> there is no reason why it should be not able to do
> wifi-mesh-networking.
> 
> You really should mention in your draft, that community networks are
> severely threatend by FCC and EU regulations.[12]
> Proposal 1: All radio equipped hardware being sold must be open and
> enable alternative firmware to be deployed.
> 
> The current open frequencies have a very low throughput or need an
> enormous effort and knowledge to use them.
> Wifi delivers very bad results when walls, vegetation or water is 
> involved.
> Proposal 2: The most suitable (best throughput under various
> conditions) frequencies must be opened for public use worldwide.
> Under these conditions more people would be able to participate in
> digital communication.
> 
> Streets have physical limitations. Who owns them has got a monopoly.
> With telecommunication infrastructure it is quite similar and the
> reason why for example in Germany at last the variety of
> telecommunication providers has declined with the result of one
> telecommunication provider having a monopoly and therefore can
> dictate the prices.(Telekom)
> Streets as well as communication means are vital for the well being of
> a society.
> To leave these life veins to bodies with commercial interest without
> ethical commitments results in a discrimination (against)
> the poor.
> In wireless communities the poor depend on the generosity of others to
> pay their access where it is actually the responsibilty of a country
> to provide free access to communication means indiscriminately to its
> inhabitants as it is ususal for streets and has been proven to be a
> good idea.
> Therefore
> Proposal 3: The digital communication infrastructure such as
> conductions and antennas should be mostly tax funded, free to use and
> in public hand.
> 
> 
> [1] https://gnunet.org/
> [2] http://maidsafe.net/
> [3] http://net2o.de/
> [4] https://briarproject.org/
> [5] https://github.com/timberdoodle/TimberdoodleApp
> 
> [6] https://www.w3.org/2014/strint/papers/65.pdf
> [7] wiki.c3d2.de/EDN
> [8] https://gnunet.org/cadet
> [9]
> http://mirror.eu.oneandone.net/projects/media.ccc.de/congress/2013/workshops/30c3-WS-en-YBTI_Mesh-Bart_Polot-GNUnet_Wireless_Mesh_DHT.webm
> [10] https://github.com/dangowrt/gnunet-15.05
> 
> [11] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEBu7u6hZSo
> [12] https://fsfe.org/activities/radiodirective/
> [13] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g00l5qBYXu8, starting from minute 
> 4:00
> 
> 
> Hope this helped.
> Kind regards
> Fmod
> 
> Project EDN
> wiki.c3d2.de/EDN
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gaia mailing list
> gaia@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia