-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I think the most exciting opportunity here is to allow a node to reconnect to other nodes that may be behind firewalls provided that at least one of the node's peers is not behind a firewall, by relying on address resolution keys (or whatever we want to call them).
Ian. On 3 May 2006, at 13:11, Matthew Toseland wrote: > I agree... ARK servers would be a single point of failure. > > However, we do still have the various problems with NATs and > dynamic IP > addresses. With ARKs, if we get one connection we can then find out > what > the new addresses of our peers are, and tell them our new IP. With > STUN, > we can determine our IP address by relying on a centralized (but > standard, and widely used) service; with UP&P, on the rare occasions > where it works, we can determine our IP address from that, *and* > forward > the port. > > The other proposal is rendezvous plugins. We could for example have a > Jabber address for a node. This would only be used to send a > rendezvous > message to in order to exchange IP addresses. Obviously this is > centralized, though other rendezvous plugins might not be. (e.g. the > DNS technique published in Phrack last year). > > On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 09:09:21PM +0200, freenetwork at web.de wrote: >>>> Dave Baker wrote: >>>>> Also, wouldn't connecting to a known ARK server give away the >>>>> fact that you >>>>> were running Freenet? >>>> >>>> Agreed - like I said, the ARK server (or someone eavesdropping >>>> on it) >>>> would be able to harvest addresses. But I'm not suggesting a single >>>> central server - there could be any number of servers, each >>>> trusted by a >>>> few individuals to the extent that they don't mind the server >>>> knowing >>>> that they're running Freenet, but either they don't trust the >>>> server >>>> quite enough to make it a darknet peer, or the server doesn't have >>>> enough bandwidth to make them all peers. >>>> >>>> The suggestion was motivated by the fact that static IP >>>> addresses are >>>> increasingly rare - if you're lucky enough to have one, you >>>> could serve >>>> the network by helping dynamically addressed peers to find one >>>> another. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Michael >>> >>> I don't like the idea, it's way too centralised, it's better to do >>> everything in a non-centralised way and if needed rely on services >>> widely used by joe average so they can't be shut down just like >>> that, >>> they'd still have the monitoring problem but it's better than >>> creating >>> our own central servers. >> >> Huh? ARK-Servers?! >> >> AFAI can remember, ARKs have never been anything else than date- >> DBR-SSKs, or in 0.7, probably USKs. What's this "server" talk >> coming from? >> >> *totally confused* >> >> What _servers_?! >> >> As soon as any "non generic" node is being invented, the >> freenetproject has died for me. The strength of the whole system >> comes from the fact that all nodes are the same; no single point >> of failure: every single node has to be taken down to have the net >> ceased. > -- > Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org > Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ > ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. > _______________________________________________ > Tech mailing list > Tech at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin) iD8DBQFEWSJsQtgxRWSmsqwRAiHjAJ9qNlsaxc2F9ZzR48tXcWcgC8TMgQCeLMQu 3myfx9vZ2lrFb0/spkhJ+CA= =GT1Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
