OT: cheap colo space in Southern Germany/Munich

Caleb James DeLisle calebdelisle at lavabit.com
Sat Nov 24 19:06:10 PST 2012

Oh hi..
Interesting criticism.

On 11/24/2012 02:03 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 06:46:12PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> On 24/11/2012 17:38, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>>> E.g. see 
>>> https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns/blob/master/rfcs/Whitepaper.md
>>> which is an instance of street technology to address
>>> multiple issues the current networks don't deal with.
>> cjdns is certainly an interesting approach, but its inventor doesn't appear
>> to understand:
> I think you have several excellent points (those, that I could
> understand, at least) and in fact I'll let cjd know.
> Again, I don't claim that this particular design is
> going to work. Just that is an instance of a coming
> series of approaches which will result in a functional
> system, eventually, some 10-15 years downstream.
>> - scaling issues

It's incumbent on me to prove that it scales but if there are obvious theoretical
scaling inadequacies then maybe you would care to bring them up?

>> - point to multipoint networking

Grandma doesn't use it.

>> - that deterministic reachability is usually considered a good thing

I'd love for it to be more deterministic but I don't see how to make the design do that.

>> - non-local connectivity lookup introduces hilarious denial of service
>> mechanisms

Yeap, DoS is a serious issue with this design.
It's also a serious issue (although less serious) with the Internet as it is today.
My plan is to introduce a market based flood management system integrated with congestion control logic.
What's your plan?
Just hoping that that botnets never reach terrabit capacity isn't an answer.

>> - the value of bitfield qos

Grandma doesn't use it.

>> - that the use of bEncoding for connectivity lookup is a degree or two
>> worse than using TLVs for the same means

bEncoding sucks. But it sucks less than the alternatives which I saw at the time.
What's necessary is simplicity and ability to add keys to a message without breaking old nodes.

>> - full independence from traditional ip protocols ("Router messages are
>> sent as normal UDP/IPv6 packets except that their UDP source and
>> destination port numbers are zero and the hop limit (TTL) field in the IPv6
>> header is set to zero.")

It's probably not the best design but it's an asthetic issue, cjdns weeds the control packets
out of the stream en route, it doesn't "bind to port 0".

>> - that strictly symmetric routing is a bug, not a feature

Good to hear that cjdns isn't missing a feature.

>> - that 64 bits as a routing path mechanism is woefully insufficient for
>> modern networking

/me snickers at the fact that it was said on an IPv6 mailing list.

>> - that separation of control plane and data plane on a router is probably a
>> good idea

If you mean what I think you mean, that's already done ("cjdns weeds the packets out of
the stream").

>> - throwing out the book on existing networking models is only valid if the
>> proposed replacement is measurably better


Throwing out the book is always valid, at best you invent the next big thing, at worst
you have a great learning experience. In the middle, the good ideas are integrated into
existing technologies and the bad ideas serve as a case study.

>> What's left in cjdns is a poorly specified mishmash of curious ideas which
>> will work fine on the author's playpen network and which will break
>> horribly on large networks, regardless of how hard the author waves the
>> "hey look at me, i'm having a revolution" flag.

If I was in charge of a major AS, I wouldn't implement *anything* which was developed
with an R&D budget of 0. There are some potentially interesting components but as a whole,
cjdns is not intended to work on large networks.

In places like where I live, it's not cost effective for cable and phone companies to
provide fast internet.

I believe that people are willing to spend money on a pole and a few directional radio
links if they can install the equipment and it will just work. I also think they'll be willing
to share the data downstream if they can get a discount on their bill for the data they shared.

What I need is a way to separate infrastructure, billing, and IP4 gateway provision.
I want to put up a pole, make a directional radio link to my neighbor, sign up with a billing
provider that takes major credit cards, and be online. I don't want to worry about my neighbor
spying on my traffic and if someone links to my pole, I want a discount for carrying their bits.

IMO the most important role of cjdns is not in offering an answer but in introducing a question.


>> Nick

----- End forwarded message -----
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

More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list