[Freedombox-discuss] http://politics.slashdot.org/story/11/07/18/0153204/Security-Consultants-Wa rn-About-PROTECT-IP-Act
Hi Bert, Ian and James,
> > One ideal for the FreedomBox is that it be self hosting. All the
> > servers it relies on should be other FreedomBoxes. That's a lofty
> > goal, though, and it would take a *lot* of time to make
+1
> But then, how would the freedombox interconnect to each
> others? How would they be reachable for people outside of the
> freedombox network? Should avery onwer register by herself a
> domain, and then be quite alone and vulnerable to shutdown/blacklist?
According to Eben, each FBX owner would have their own domain name. If the
domain of an FBX owner was attacked, the strength in numbers of other FBX
owners would help get the activists message out through mesh networking.
This is one of the reasons I signed up to FBX. I think it's fair to extend
that principle for people with a ISP provided Static IP address to help
those people whose ISP only provides Dynamic IP addresses. Still, you may
have to run a poll agreeing to what I consider a natural extension.
I thought Skype (0, 1) solved this peer-to-peer problem already with their
use of super nodes, albeit their super nodes do not realise they are
providing such a service. I would be happy for my Static IP address to be
used as a "FreedomBox Network super node" because it's my understanding from
the Skype article that it doesn't use that much bandwidth and there are set
connection limits. Skype super nodes are also used to pass on directory
listings to Skype.com, which could also be a possible directory solution for
the FBX Foundation and is an indication that the super nodes have the
backing of the FBX Foundation and are not acting alone, which concerned
Bert. I still believe people should have to opt-in to a FBX Global Directory
and that you must be a logged-in to your FBX before you can see the FBX
Global Directory.
I also think most early adopters of FBX are freedom techie activists who
would more than likely have a Static IP address that could be used as a
super node. Of course these super nodes could be the subject of attacks and
in those cases the resources of FBX Foundation may need to step in to help,
like Skype did when a software bug took out their super nodes.
Alternatively, if the super nodes are attacked the FBX could fall back to
their mesh-networking mode solution.
I am only a user and my assumption that such Skype like software exists for
domain names could be completely wrong, but Skype has been around for years,
surely somebody has copied this idea for peer to peer networking?
I realise my suggestion is not very helpful technically, but maybe it can at
least help you step back from the detail and let you look at the problem
with fresh eyes. Still, Bert you know now there is at least one more person
prepared to use their FBX as a super node. That makes two of us \o/
Thank you for taking the time to read this non-technical opinion.
(0)
http://www.disruptivetelephony.com/2010/12/understanding-todays-skype-outage
-explaining-supernodes.html
(1)
http://skypejournal.com/blog/2010/12/28/1-4-million-skype-supernodes-crashed
-chartvideo/
Reply to: