On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 09:04:05PM +0000, John Case wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011, J.A. Terranson wrote:
This seems preety hefty on ambition and pretty low on details. Is he planning on these wal-wart "servers" acting as TOR nodes? Universally
I think they're drafting up the specs. Tor would be a save idea, ip2 and LAFS-Tahoe another.
accessable wifi spots? FreeNet nodes, or LAFS servers?
Not necessarily WiFi, thogh if the wall wart has a radio, why not. Just another NIC.
I think what bugs me the most here is that the basic premise appears intrinsically flawed: On Inet-1, everyone can see who you are - it's an artifact of the construction goals originally designed for.
I'd want to see some more meat and less fluff before I looked any deeper.
The (obvious) meme going around is "we'll just set up a mesh".
I think you're being too harsh here. These are wired nodes, running vanilla current p2p stuff. Tor e.g. might not scale to a meganode, but it would be fun to find out when and how it breaks.
You can stop reading when you see that. A mesh network that does the things these people want it to do is currently rocket-science hard.
I notice you didn't comment on the sketch I gave you. While not a rocket surgeon, the issue of routing by itself is doable, provided you meet certain constraints. I wish I had time to write a simulator for that to prove a few points.
It can be done, and I'd be the first one celebrating, but from the mouths of these morons its just mental masturbation.
Let's compare notes. I tell you how I think it could be done, and you take it apart. Deal? -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE