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

future@systemli.org Wed, 06 April 2016 11:34 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 4238012D1B2 for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 04:34:01 -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 LvTWPMY9cASg for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 04:33:58 -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 E532A12D783 for <gaia@irtf.org>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 04:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
To: gaia@irtf.org
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=systemli.org; s=default; t=1459942434; bh=ZPSOrt8N2FoRPYOh8RQsN/2Sps57gEISR62hTl65wrE=; h=To:Subject:Date:From; b=IDjB64DKOZufpYW0TnigmeRfPot9oLecjWXRrF4C7QK4eIp+pDPd7Y4WMy5LVsgJQ +r3/IH/RgAZ24An2AkX9ol+h7WCTVzrUCAP3kSSBYKHf/2rnDuHxV8TZi/1ICFFmV7 bt9bNJlhMtMcgVUyw7TQZbjs9TVi/xSrWNNDJTWQ=
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 5003:rcube.php
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 13:33:54 +0200
From: future@systemli.org
Message-ID: <ee014af6a8b3e085b427caac65547999@systemli.org>
X-Sender: future@systemli.org
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gaia/xnK1P1dGn35Pv1UX9Jpi6Sz-r1Y>
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: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:34:01 -0000

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