Le jeudi 06 août 2009 21:27:41, Matthew Toseland a écrit : > On Thursday 06 August 2009 16:33:04 Evan Daniel wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Matthew > > > > Toseland<[email protected]> wrote: > > > I propose that as a darknet value-add, and as an additional tool for > > > those in hostile regimes who have friends on the outside, we implement > > > a web-proxy-over-your-darknet-peers option. Your Friends would announce > > > whether they are willing to proxy for you, and you could choose which > > > friends to use, or allow it to use all of them (assuming people on the > > > inside don't offer). You could then configure your browser to use > > > Freenet as a proxy. This would not provide any anonymity but it would > > > get you past network obstacles and/or out of Bad Place and into Happy > > > Place. It's not a long term solution, but: - We have expended > > > considerable effort on making darknet viable: IP detection, ARKs etc. - > > > It could take advantage of future transport plugins, but even before > > > that, FNP 0.7 is quite hard to block. - Many people are in this > > > situation. > > > - It is easy to implement. HTTP is complex but cache-less proxies can > > > be very simple. - It could be combined with longer term measures > > > (growing the internal darknet), and just work for as long as it works. > > > Most likely it would be throttled rather than blocked outright to start > > > with, hopefully allowing for a smooth-ish migration of users to more > > > robust mechanisms... - We could allow recursive proxying to some depth > > > - maybe friend of a friend. This would provide a further incentive to > > > grow the internal darknet, which is what we want. - The classic problem > > > with proxies is that they are rare so hundreds of people connect to > > > them, and the government finds out and blocks them. This does not apply > > > here. > > > > I like it. Darknet features are a very good thing. This probably > > also needs some care wrt bandwidth management (related to 3334 -- > > similar considerations probably apply). > > > > However, as I mentioned on IRC, there are several things I think > > should be higher priority. Of course, I'm not the one implementing > > any of this, but here's my opinion anyway ;) In no particular order: > > > > - Documentation! Both the plugins api and making sure that the FCP > > docs on the wiki are current and correct. > > I will try to spend some time on this soon... > > > - Bloom filter sharing. (Probably? I have no idea what the relative > > work required is for these two.) > > Agreed, this is a big one. > > > - Freetalk and a blogging app of some sort (though these are probably > > mostly for someone other than toad?). > > There are a number of things I can do to help p0s. > > > - A few specific bugs: 3295 (percent encoding is horribly, > > embarrassingly broken -- in at least 5 different ways), 2931 (split > > blocks evenly between splitfile segments -- should help dramatically > > with availability), fixing top block healing on splitfiles (discussed > > in 3358). > > Skeptical on priority re 3295, but I guess I should look into it. IMHO it > is critical that the top block be redundant, hence MHKs. Dunno re relative > priority with f2f web proxy though. > > > - Low-latency inserts flag as per 3338. (I know, most people probably > > don't care all that much, but I'd really like to see whether Freenet > > can hit near-real-time latencies for the messaging app I'm working > > on.) > > > > Also, it's worth considering other ways to make darknet connections > > more useful (in addition to this, whether before or after I don't have > > a strong opinion on). Enabling direct transfer of large files would > > be good (at a bare minimum, this shouldn't fail silently like it does > > right now). > > ljb is working on this as we speak. The problem is simply persistence - if > the node restarts before you accept the transfer, it will break. But he > will do some improvements to the UI as well e.g. showing the transfers on > the downloads page. > > > Improving messaging would be good; I should be able to > > see recently sent / received messages (including timestamps), queue a > > message to be sent when a peer comes online, and tell whether a > > message I've sent arrived successfully. > > I think most of this is within ljb's remit? ljb? vive? > > > Evan Daniel
Is there any defined roadmap for 0.8 yet ? If not, it might be good to clear things up, and decides which features are must have and which aren't. For instance, a F2F proxy is a great idea, but it's another feature plan on top of an already good filled list. It gives the impression of unconsistency (I said "impression" ;) ) (Also, I'm not on irc since a while, so I don't know what's really happening, so if this question has already been answered, just ignore me :) ) _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
