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

future@systemli.org Wed, 13 April 2016 21:45 UTC

Return-Path: <future@systemli.org>
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 7E7AD12DFB6 for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:45:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=systemli.org
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 V3Zo3xSLphre for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:45:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.systemli.org (systemli.sh1b.ch [212.103.72.251]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 013C912DF61 for <gaia@irtf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:45:48 -0700 (PDT)
To: gaia@irtf.org
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=systemli.org; s=default; t=1460583945; bh=CHVilegaLb2ZQJdLhW2r7/s//k1tIO4E6NhGSvoPkPY=; h=To:Subject:Date:From:In-Reply-To:References; b=k8g3q3GTOKBIrrEO3chkITp6Coq0J9PW9FwkKWsb65zQqoaY9pBlDeXcFA10YVSog t1NDMIoNZMB1d7ccsF1JF1GWd4GxhCzsu5Tv4SY0Z4wphKcQ1O/w4aCqUNcIKTkQRG 0bnRUr49UahKUTMdBcE28ZhuBYq8rO/4RxqTd6KM=
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 5003:rcube.php
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 21:45:45 +0000
From: future@systemli.org
In-Reply-To: <006b01d19554$eff69080$cfe3b180$@unizar.es>
References: <ee014af6a8b3e085b427caac65547999@systemli.org> <5d76a50d6f49977440e927a742aa27e5@unizar.es> <705aac1463952c2a0630f63ec198a894@systemli.org> <006b01d19554$eff69080$cfe3b180$@unizar.es>
Message-ID: <695d7f8c0af83663c60adda51613382d@systemli.org>
X-Sender: future@systemli.org
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gaia/drEsEUOmEvG_gvVMfQuXHhg7lJ4>
Subject: [gaia] Fwd: RE: 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: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 21:45:51 -0000

Hi all,
What do you think of including potential Future Alternative Networks?
As i mentioned before-see below- these focus on privacy and security and 
to even replace the current insecure Internet with a new one.

Kind regards
Fmod

######################
Hi,

I think we should discuss this in the GAIA list. I would like to hear 
others' opinions. If you could post this message there, it would be 
great.

Thanks!

Jose

###########################
> 
> Hi Jose,
> 
> yes. Currently there are no wireless communities using this software.
> But i suggested to put them under a new section:
> Possible ->Future<- Alternative Networks.
> Since they are aiming at replacing the existing solutions with more 
> secure and
> privacy preserving ones- even replacing the existing Internet-protocol 
> stack:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM4J7ljCExM
> 
> Kind regards
> Dmos
> 
> Am 2016-04-11 08:30, schrieb Jose Saldana:
> > 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/wo
> >> rkshops/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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gaia mailing list
> > gaia@irtf.org
> > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia