CDR: Re: FidoNet II

[Harmon Seaver]

Tom Vogt wrote:

> Tim May wrote:
> > First, if you're going to attempt a "FidoNet II," at least use link
> > encryption at every stage.
>
> that goes without saying, doesn't it?
>
> > Second, so long as one has done the above, might as well make each
> > node an actual remailer. With all of the usual mixing of in/out
> > packets, packet size padding, etc.
>
> good one. yes, should be done that way.
>
> > Third, the use of radio links has come up several times over the
> > years. A couple of early Cypherpunks were involved in packet radio
> > and addressed the issue. By the way, the FCC still has restrictions
> > on encrption over the airwaves, as I understand things.

           All the wireless LAN/WAN stuff uses encryption, altho only 128bit
AFAIK. However, do crypto-anarchists really care what the FCC says? When/if
crypto email is outlawed on the net, will packet pirates give a rat's ass
whether it's legal to broadcast spread spectrum encrypted data, usurping
whatever band is optimal or they can afford the hardware for?

>
>
> I was thinking more in the direction of wireless LAN.

         I'm working with wireless specs right now, but for WAN (although you
can use the same hardware)  and trying to do this with that tech is pretty
limiting. If you want any distance at all (over about 800 feet) it's strictly
point-to-point, true line of sight, which means no foliage in the way.  You can
do about 25-30 miles that way, and you can have repeaters, of course, but you
have to get up over the tree tops.  And you can get 11mbs over that distance
with pretty cheap hardware, but the towers cost you at least $2500 each. Of
course you can use existing towers.
        But, of course, this is all pretty obvious stuff -- easy to spot, easy
to destroy, hardly a underground answer.  And pretty expensive compared to say
shortwave broadcast hardware.

               I was thinking more like converted mil surplus or cb or ham
tech.

>
>
> > Fourth, given the speeds of the Net, given the move to put phone
> > calls over the Net, given the many tools...why on earth would anyone
> > want to revive FidoNet? Implement remailer protocols to do a virtual
> > FidoNet, perhaps, but don't actually have machines phoning up other
> > machines!
>
> course not! see my earlier mails - the internet is available as a
> transport layer, so let's use it.

          Especially in the early stages.  Fido2 nodes all around the internet,
set up and functioning with mirrors to packet radio units hidden away in the
bunkers.  8-)  And maybe played with occasionally.

>
>
> > Look to remailer networks and I think you'll find what you're looking for.
>
> maybe the existing remailer structure could even be utilized. all one
> has to do is a simple "email2file" translation. say
> "filename at mynode.com".

            I think you'd want to meld mixmaster with something like CLX (
http://www.clx.muc.de/ ) the packet node software.


--
Harmon Seaver, MLIS     Systems Librarian
Arrowhead Library System        Virginia, MN
(218) 741-3840  hseaver at arrowhead.lib.mn.us  http://harmon.arrowhead.lib.mn.us