On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:17:42PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 06:27:42AM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
On 10/17/19, coderman <coderman@protonmail.com> wrote:
There are many, many analogies you can draw about a network of this type to an ATM (asynchronous transfer mode) network.
i'm old enough to remember writing XTI/STREAMS code for ATM networks. (blast from the past!)
ATM CBR SVCs would be a perfect fit for padding schemes, if they existed for consumer use :)
Telco generated clocked TDM bucket brigades... Suggested for years overlays can still emulate them to good use... full time chaff padding fill all node-to-node links at negotiated maintained rates, displace chaff with wheat as it comes in, reclock and enforce the line contracts, keying, etc at the switchports (overlay nodes). *VC padding requires lots of management overhead and signaling between layers in overlay net to avoid user traffic saturating paths, finding bw routes, etc, forget that. Chaff fill at node-to-node link layer is easier... just as physical link crypto over fulltime fill works in background between switchports (there are proposals for ethernet to do this, embedded PHY instead of aftermarket anti-SPY gadget). Nodes already know what other nodes the upper layer wants to talk to, so they nego fill with them before swapping out lower fill for upper wheat on demand. Tor-like circuit extends in upper layer still works. User traffic in upper layers rides happy till users fill their own circuits they provisioned into the net, no different than tor or any other overlay today.
If we rely on layers below end-user control, we lose a major element of security we're trying to achieve here.
However, when or for which use cases, could we do the following: - an onion mini route, say nodes ABC - C does not encrypt outgoing packets at all, routes to [[D]E]F - F then encrypts to G[H] Does such a link make sense for any use case? If it does, no point not using that. Something to think about... (There is similarity to exit node routing to clear net - but that second encrypted route FGH above, with the middle route CDEF being unencrypted (ABC - CDEF - FGH) may well mean possibilities for greater overall network efficiency with no drawbacks (if we can identify suitable use cases) - I have to catch my vehemence when dismissing something too quickly and/or without actual thought, gets embarrasing.)
We can begin with low bw links for wheat in the chaff text messages - bittorrent floods at all times would kill backbones in a sense - that's why unlimited plans ultimately shape.
So, we shape, neighbour nodes shape. Incentivization: - Classical "capitalist" incentivization is done with money, or some obvious fiat surrogate for money. - Network incentivization can exist in additional ways. - A user accessing a webserver who is re-serving content addressed content, may get priority bandwidth from the server. - User may offer time limited, total re-upload bw and/or upload count, or some other specified limitation of content re-serving. - Verifying a user delivers on promise is another conundrum. - Making "user ID"s costly to produce can disincentivize "gaming" such incentivization schemes. - Actual meat space friends have (presumably) natural incentive to "provide resources, at least within configured limits, to one another". - Friends tending to "stay connected longer than otherwise, to assist my friends who peer with me", improves the aggregate (global) network experience for everyone; more nodes per unit time, means: - more routing opportunities - more aggregate bandwidth, - more options to choose from to minimize latency (when needed) - more aggregate data storage/ caching/ re-serving (if we can design satisfactory protocols for this) So incentivizing meat space "identification of friend nodes" should be a net win for everyone - it's a natural point of natural incentivization to "better network behaviour". "Friends collude with one another to help one another, part of what it means to be friends."