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

[[e-mail]]

Hi,

> Those are mostly overlay networks

If this answers your question:
GNUnet, Maidsafe, Net2o can all set on UDP:

http://www.grothoff.org/christian/mapping2014.pdf, page 34
https://github.com/maidsafe/MaidSafe-Transport
http://fossil.net2o.de/net2o/doc/trunk/wiki/topology.md

In addition GNUnet can set on WLAN and Bluetooth.
So what is missing for the others is just the right module beneath.
It is a question of time that they get it and that at least one of these 
newcomers constitute community wireless networks, whereas GNUnet is 
closest, and will again, afaik participate at the Battlemesh this year.

  They do not really work on
> providing the infrastructure itself?
Actually they all do, as long as you don't mean layer 0 - hardware.
But that might come along when the time has come.


> Some other similar projects (to my knowledge):
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cjdns
Cjdns provides end-2-end-encryption and there are communities using it.
As long as not configured (using Tor) it provides no protection of 
metadata.


> https://ipfs.io/
Provides no end-to-end-encryption nor metadata-protection.
Maybe useful on top of an Internet that delivers the above requirements.

--Fmod
#######################################

> 
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 2:45 PM,  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 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, [e-mail] 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
>>> >>