Meshnet activists rebuilding the Internet from scratch(newscientist.com)
newscientist.com
Meshnet activists rebuilding the Internet from scratch
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929294.500
12 comments
[deleted]
What is the point of creating such network if it is for the benefit of just a few ?
If 1% of the population can have free speech, but the rest of them don't, nothing will change...
1. anyone can create their own meshnet. Hack37: download cjdns and find a friend and set up your meshnet of 2 people.
2. if you learn of others with meshnets, you can then peer to the other group, then you're all linked together. Repeat.
3. The steps you just did, those can be automated so that you automatically peer with the whole planet. However, that's complicated to build. But it's being built. Join HypeIRC #qmai or #cjdns to discuss. To join hype IRC you need to peer with the Hyperboria meshnet, as HypeIRC is not broadcast to the Internet. There are links to public IRCs to find peers if you know none (start at http://projectmeshnet.org). You're free to automate this with your own group of trusted peers too. Hope to see you on HypeIRC soon.
2. if you learn of others with meshnets, you can then peer to the other group, then you're all linked together. Repeat.
3. The steps you just did, those can be automated so that you automatically peer with the whole planet. However, that's complicated to build. But it's being built. Join HypeIRC #qmai or #cjdns to discuss. To join hype IRC you need to peer with the Hyperboria meshnet, as HypeIRC is not broadcast to the Internet. There are links to public IRCs to find peers if you know none (start at http://projectmeshnet.org). You're free to automate this with your own group of trusted peers too. Hope to see you on HypeIRC soon.
You are mistaking free speech with access to the media.
Private meshes usage doesn't grant mass media attention so I don't see why a bunch of hackers communicating freely on their little line grant them a better "free speech to change things" than the other 99%. Private meshes aren't tools to raise awareness but tools to have a different network. It all depends on the message you want to send and the recipients you want to reach.
Right now private meshes users are much less than 1% of the population anyway.
But it could grow fast in dense urban zone. I can foresee some weekends of hacking and configuring routers at home for the coming months.
Private meshes usage doesn't grant mass media attention so I don't see why a bunch of hackers communicating freely on their little line grant them a better "free speech to change things" than the other 99%. Private meshes aren't tools to raise awareness but tools to have a different network. It all depends on the message you want to send and the recipients you want to reach.
Right now private meshes users are much less than 1% of the population anyway.
But it could grow fast in dense urban zone. I can foresee some weekends of hacking and configuring routers at home for the coming months.
More importantly, what's the point of building pipes if nothing flows through them. I don't think there is a YouTube or a HN over there. One may imagine that users may share files they have on their discs, or more generally serve stuff, but then you depend on them being up and running (and reachable) 24/7.
I can see that problem solved or attenuated if those meshes turn into some kind of distributed networks like bitmessage or bittorrent where everyone has duplicate pieces of a larger "file" thus ensuring almost 99% availability. Data put in the network would be everywhere and maybe a distribution algorithm could ensure that there's always a complete source on one node so the swarm could be rebuilt if one node goes down.
Of course the bandwidth will be nothing like what ISP can offer.
What concerns me is how highly vulnerable to RF disruption some of those projects relying on WiFi are. This is a serious problem if you are trying to communicate vital information in a country where the government is hell-bent on not letting citizens set up counter-revolt or grass-root movements because it'll actually be very cheap to disturb those signals (I may be wrong but from what I understand of WiFi freq. range it's easy to neutralize a network by flooding it with interference).
edit: But maybe we don't need 24/7 availability for those kind of network usage. Well-organized revolutionary and underground movements might not need a youtube or facebook uptime.
Of course the bandwidth will be nothing like what ISP can offer.
What concerns me is how highly vulnerable to RF disruption some of those projects relying on WiFi are. This is a serious problem if you are trying to communicate vital information in a country where the government is hell-bent on not letting citizens set up counter-revolt or grass-root movements because it'll actually be very cheap to disturb those signals (I may be wrong but from what I understand of WiFi freq. range it's easy to neutralize a network by flooding it with interference).
edit: But maybe we don't need 24/7 availability for those kind of network usage. Well-organized revolutionary and underground movements might not need a youtube or facebook uptime.
> What concerns me is how highly vulnerable to RF disruption some of those projects relying on WiFi are. This is a serious problem if you are trying to communicate vital information in a country where the government is hell-bent on not letting citizens set up counter-revolt or grass-root movements because it'll actually be very cheap to disturb those signals (I may be wrong but from what I understand of WiFi freq. range it's easy to neutralize a network by flooding it with interference).
Plenty of WIFI networks are sub-optimal because the people implementing them don't know what they're doing with channels and power etc. I'm worried that meshnet activism will attract many people who are keen but not clueful.
See also "IETF Attendees Re-Engineer Hotel WIFI" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3771876) (https://www.networkworld.com/news/2012/032812-ietf-makeover-...)
I agree that it feels like jamming WIFI would be trivially easy for people with even moderate skills and resources.
Plenty of WIFI networks are sub-optimal because the people implementing them don't know what they're doing with channels and power etc. I'm worried that meshnet activism will attract many people who are keen but not clueful.
See also "IETF Attendees Re-Engineer Hotel WIFI" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3771876) (https://www.networkworld.com/news/2012/032812-ietf-makeover-...)
I agree that it feels like jamming WIFI would be trivially easy for people with even moderate skills and resources.
It's pretty easy to pick up a 2.4GHz jammer on ebay or various other sites.
[deleted]
Yawn. Paywall.
But meshnets are a very interesting area of research. It can only be a good thing to remove the main gatekeepers (ISPs) out of the equation.
I wonder if you could take advantage of the opening up of various whitespace spectrums (thinking specifically in the UK, but I imagine this is happening elsewhere in the world).
But meshnets are a very interesting area of research. It can only be a good thing to remove the main gatekeepers (ISPs) out of the equation.
I wonder if you could take advantage of the opening up of various whitespace spectrums (thinking specifically in the UK, but I imagine this is happening elsewhere in the world).
Meshnets got a whole lot more interesting when suddenly everybody started running around with a potential wifi node in their pocket.
Node to node communication may work fine when there's few locals connected to each other. But if the project somehow would cover the whole world, wouldn't latency with a faraway node come close to infinity? Besides, how would the messages find it's way to a node, let's say 1000 nodes away from you? Natural development would be that few nodes would become much larger than the others, and those nodes would handle small nodes around it and communicate with other large nodes far away, but then the large nodes would become like ISP's and could be compromised by the government, effectively crippling the network. But it could be that the node-to-node communication would only be used as a fallback option for the information that is unable to pass through the bigger possibly under control nodes... I guess I should take a look at it.
I've met a bunch of the people involved in the Seattle Meshnet project, since they have held meetings and set up a repeater station at ALTSpace, a makerspace I'm involved with. They're an enthusiastic bunch; the project hasn't hit critical mass yet but they are slogging away diligently.
I don't really understand what CJDNS does, and for the short term you can't really participate in the meshnet without a pretty solid understanding of the technologies involved, but I personally know quite a few people in central Seattle who would be happy to host repeaters if the meshnet people can get a turn-key installation package set up. I hope they'll reach that point soon.
I don't really understand what CJDNS does, and for the short term you can't really participate in the meshnet without a pretty solid understanding of the technologies involved, but I personally know quite a few people in central Seattle who would be happy to host repeaters if the meshnet people can get a turn-key installation package set up. I hope they'll reach that point soon.
Mesh would be much more stable and efficient when it's based not on voluntary free-of-charge participation (like bittorrent, which does not work well for not-very-popular items), but on economics. If everyone pays everyone in Bitcoin for bandwidth and storage, the competition among computer enthusiasts would create a robust working network with lowest prices possible without any fancy algorithms to detect "leechers" and "seeders".
I agree, an economic incentive would certainly add value to the ecosystem and allow it to grow faster.
Could someone clarify what the purpose of a meshnet is? Only encryption of all the contents? Or also hiding who talks to who? That last one seems quite difficult to achieve to me, in the presence of an attacker that permeates the network (the internet).
The main purpose is to have a network without depending on a central ISP.
A good example of a sizable meshnet is the Athens Wireless Metropolitan[1] network which has more than a thousand backbone nodes.
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Wireless_Metropolitan_Ne...
A good example of a sizable meshnet is the Athens Wireless Metropolitan[1] network which has more than a thousand backbone nodes.
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Wireless_Metropolitan_Ne...
Ah, I missed the point that this network would eschew the internet totally. I now realize that the top comment and even the excerpt say exactly that.
Remember when WiMax was being discussed? How come it still isn't being sold yet? Could it be that it's because providers felt threatened?
I suppose it would take meshnets to a whole new level.
I suppose it would take meshnets to a whole new level.
At least in EU, WiMax failed because the states decided to licence the spectrum to the usual telcos that had no interest in deploying the technology fearing a possible cannibalization of their own businesses.
However, WiMax is not a mesh network, although you can obviously use WiMax as a physical link on top of which a mesh protocol can work.
However, WiMax is not a mesh network, although you can obviously use WiMax as a physical link on top of which a mesh protocol can work.
I suppose it's time we have a public open hardware effort in order to break the telcos' unhealthy monopoly.
Because the hardware and software was expensive and 3GPP ended up putting out a spec (LTE) that understood the way to move forward was to work with existing infrastructure and expand from there.
Sprint/Clearwire have deployed WiMax to >70 U.S. markets covering over 100m residents. If you live in e.g. Atlanta, you can buy a WiMax connection today. See clear.com.
Question:
Could it be interesting to have the main project leaders set up a website allowing everybody to pay hackers to come to your home and set up the required equipment ready-to-use?
Could it be interesting to have the main project leaders set up a website allowing everybody to pay hackers to come to your home and set up the required equipment ready-to-use?
Yes, this possibility has been discussed. At this point we've got these meshbox things which are basically plug-and-play meshnet nodes, but they dont extend very far. For the sort of thing you're talking about it'll require local involvement, but it's definitely something that's been discussed at my local meshnet
I'm part of the the Montreal mesh net. It's really cool to see news of the movement on a mainstream platform.
paywall. nothing to see here, move along...
behind pay wall...
Those links mean that instead of communicating through Internet pipes run by ISPs, that communication is completely free. Further, any peer can connect with any other peer. So as peers join up, the network grows. Eventually if one peer in this cluster also has an Internet connection, then the network also does. Obviously bandwidth constraints limit infinitely sharing one ISP account with an arbitrary number of people. However, if that peer has purchased space within a data center, a cloud-hosted machine, then Internet access is realistic for those currently without access. In effect it not only allows nodes to connect, it allows any node to provide Internet.
So, the ultimate aim is not to replace the Internet. And it's not to piggy back on the Internet. It's simply to let computers communicate freely.
And part of free communication, in every sense of the word, is that communication must be encrypted. One node must be free to communicate directly to another without others listening. The idea of free speech is not merely to allow freely speaking to the public or a group, it's to allow individuals to communicate amongst only each other, while at the same time not restricting them from communication to a wider audience should they choose.
The way this security is implemented is through IPv6. Each IP is associated with a public key and shared secret. It would be feasible to incorporate a negotiated secret. But as part of the initial phase, the idea is to test the core of the project: cjdns (on Github as https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns/). This "invite" system, in effect, controls the spread of meshnet and limits the possibility for abuse of the network, since each member of a meshnet must share a secret to bring a new node in.
Plans are underway for rapid expansion of the meshnet. But careless growth is not possible, due to the current nature as a circle of trust, and importantly, the ability to de-peer malicious users.
This basic model of adding peers and sharing secrets is now being automated. And I'd tell you their specific plans, but that's a secret. Pass it on.