-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Isaac,
Just read your notes from CCC and wanted to comment on the wireless components. For the FreedomNodes, I would hope that the plan is to use 802.11a/b/g/n radios and not tie them solely to 5GHz. The 5GHz frequency, while often less congested, has a harder time propagating through architecture, trees, etc. than 2.4GHz. Since most consumer-grade equipment runs on 2.4GHz, being able to bridge between 2.4GHz and 5GHz would maximize the options for ad-hoc meshing. In terms of the Freedom Tower, the 3650-3700MHz band only allows higher-powered use for "lite licensed" devices -- which means registering the device's location with government authorities. 3650-3700MHz is also not harmonized globally, so that could present a problem for sales of these devices in many locations around the world. Overall, I love the idea of several different types of FreedomBox equipment; however, I also want to ensure maximum interoperability and extensibility of the technology. - --Sascha Meinrath Director, Open Technology Initiative New America Foundation Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:40:29 +0200 From: Isaac Wilder <[email protected]> To: [email protected], [email protected] Subject: [Freedombox-discuss] CCC Meeting Notes ********* *BEGIN ENCRYPTED or SIGNED PART* ********* Hello All, This is Isaac Wilder, from the Free Network Foundation. I convened a meeting at Chaos Communication Camp a couple of days ago, in order to talk about FreedomBox, FreedomNode, and Free Network Architectures. I told those in attendance that I would type up my notes from the meeting, and send them to the list. To start, I presented what I saw as a workable architecture: several protocol daemons connected by a 'graph' or 'identity' manager that handles access control. We came up with the following list of essential daemons, in approximate order of priority: 1)HTTP 2)XMPP 3)SIP 4)IMAP 5)TOR 6)NMTP As far as daemon selection goes, there was (general) agreement that we should use Apache for HTTP (despite its weight), Prosody for XMPP, and Yate for SIP. We also discussed UI, stressing its paramount importance to the success or failure of the endeavor. The idea of having the user configure and interface with the box via chatt (XMPP chat) was suggested. There's also always the fallback position of a web GUI. Still, many felt that the chat idea has great potential. Then, we chose to approach the discussion from the angle of open problems, both short and long term: 1) The ability to generate good random numbers a) We could foster the development of a free/open entropy key. Problem with this solution is cost. b) We could fetch randoms from a trusted upstream source. Problem here is with the first Diffee-Hellman exchange. c) We could feed a noise-generating circuit into the audio interface. This seems like a viable solution on the DreamPlug, but is not an option on some hardware. 2) How to build robust, no-hassle mesh networks. a) B.A.T.M.A.N. protocol is good, but people have been having a lot of success with the new OLSRd. FunkFeuer has had great results. b) The problem is with the radios. A single, embedded 2.4Ghz radio will not lead to good QoS, plus it should probably be reserved for communicating with client devices inside the home/business. c) The Free Network Foundation is designing FreedomNode, which is essentially the same as FreedomBox but with the addition of two 5GHz radios, allowing for multiple full-duplex mesh links. 3) Free Drivers (wifi and bluetooth drivers are closed) a)Argue with Marvell b)Reverse Engineer 4) Persistent Names (which don't rely on existing DNS) a)Name resolution based on a DHT. Problem with table poisoning could be approached by authorizing and authenticating those that participate in the resolution table. This would still introduce a degree of hierarchy, but it would be far more distributed than what we have now. b)Use TOR hidden services. This solution is good for those that are running tor, but otherwise require use of tor-to-web. Also, the .onion names are not human-readable, so would require further resolution via the mechanism above, or existing DNS. This was a topic of much controversy. Many feel that it is unnecessary to route all FBX traffic through TOR. 5) Grid Dependence (electrical) a)Add PV cells to rig. (Again, $$$) 6) Store and Forward Messagaing (The ability to store messages until they become deliverable) a)Utilize Shamir's Secret Sharing Scheme (SSSS), gather physically and exchange via radio. 7) Archiving Proxy that maintains privacy and security 8) Distributed Backup a)Tahoe LAFS b)Pagekite 9) Bitbank 10) One Time Passwords 11) Distributed Search a)YaCy b)Seeks 12) Stealth Hardware a)Sell a version wrapped in some other shell 13) Access control a)Friend of a Friend b)Case by case + key rating system We also talked about the incentives for building such a device: 1) Help fight central central control 2) Enable communications that are materially peer-to-peer 3) Enable local verticals a)Filesharing b)Local information sytems 4) Co-ownership of the PHY layer 5) Save money by building access cooperatives 6) Become our own ISPs In addition, there were some trains of discussion that do not fit neatly into any of the categories above. We talked about the importance of thinking about how technology is actually adopted in the real world. It is picked up first by power users, and then friends and family take their tech cues from those their trust and respect, or from their local technology shop. What incentives do the technically inclined have to recommend this solution to their friends? What about the people running a small computer store or internet cafe? Finally, I talked a little bit about why the FNF is involved in FBX development, and what we'd like to build using the box as a platform. I'll summarize it quickly, here, but there's more at www.thefnf.org, if you're interested. We'd like to add two 5Ghz radios to the rig, enabling it to establish high-throughput links to other boxes in the neighborhood. We call this FreedomBox + radios rig a 'FreedomNode.' We're also working on what we've been calling the 'FreedomTower.' This is a piece of infrastructure that would have 5GHz radios and sit inside a mesh of two to three thousand boxes. It would also have 3650MHz for long-range links to other towers, thus forming a regional mesh network. Finally, inside the regional mesh there would be a single 'FreedomLink,' - a multi-homed, fiber-connected host, sitting in the 3650MHz regional mesh, and speaking BGP to the global internet. This is a practicable way to build Autonomous Systems that are owned and operated collectively. Of course, outside lines could also be connected at any level of the hierarchy (box, tower, link), and shared among the community. The vision is large in scope, but the first step is definitely to bootstrap the FreedomBox. Anyways, I hope that this all will jump-start some discussion. take care, Isaac Wilder Directer, The Free Network Foundation www.thefnf.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOSlDXAAoJEFfmzqn2ZOEsRcgP/0Qo3kFXaDgAyemj4s7jhGWo BN+UdtWEQdK5Wwrzlj8vFeqOJYkQnRAkotBgL2UOq1K7XnUoia2Z9ixVsaOsGL8T MF0b2TnmugPFpzK3OPMeS1jwtxGDilzhX5dfj/CgS6g8ObQromaKuXUkdSrEsJsh Ny50KrXS7Dqg/yqY8iHlCNTVgXGz2DMDOyWHpJQuQA6aRxpv/BBDmAN3oIxmjFLe KeBRx72+8YX4Lm1fmMUsTFCZC0SC0iGAYged2ppP9GnpB1wBnQvGzywxRB10BLRL eVVcRU5GI5g3XfPnLBzYXupfQYYHDZ8K0kRuoHQ/MmzzCYmdqrDK5qMhYnYWqTLI wP32GakuyQPwnCYtxXQDSf+HH9IVeFPoCt5wPmm75ARBQ8bC9kDVwRkc+JHC0dJ5 8T/o6Kb8PtSA7mDwmKrNNPUoIxXa75R7K1kYb2sd1c1UoloYf+DDvj9tNze96Chj cDQwHruOFFHSQYbo106JFWnSJ0CR2uYVyjiPvi4F3r7/y6hTEqPfma+c1scS+aty vXG6WCqM8BCCbGfBx98ncpQ2tEg3eCLgm7pAcUk1omlobZ/jhGF/JXB4eTfIEghB G/HMx8c2B2jttK3PjE+ebfgaF3NcOegSY+tCHk1q59IsfrU20TTOcQZ3cJfubRso 6LJ7DQhlNTE3EO3BHCJu =wZq1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
