
P2P DNS - mikemoka
https://github.com/Mononofu/P2P-DNS
======
brudgers
Some historical context from 2010: [http://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2010/11/fed-up-with-icann...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2010/11/fed-up-with-icann-pirate-bay-cofounder-floats-p2p-dns-system/)

Codebase has not seen significant recent activity.

~~~
nly
So it predates Namecoin.

------
Canada
Decentralized naming is an interesting problem.

There are several problems with this design though:

1) Cheap, permanent domain squatting is possible

2) Legitimate domain owners can't recover from key loss

3) Onerous storage requirements for every node

~~~
the8472
> 2) Legitimate domain owners can't recover from key loss

That doesn't seem like an insurmountable obstacle to me. You could devise a
scheme where there's the option of a majority of multiple offline backup keys
can be used to invalidate and replace the current online key.

Then it's up to the legitimate owner whether the domain is valuable enough to
do that kind of key management and backup.

------
mifreewil
Related:

* Namecoin [https://namecoin.info/](https://namecoin.info/)

* cjdns [https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns](https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns)

~~~
lgierth
Cjdns is a p2p IPv6 network and doesn't do DNS -- I see how the name can be
confusing though :)

(I'm one of the developers)

~~~
mifreewil
Thanks for clarifying that - I remember hearing about the project a while ago.
I looked at the most recent documentation and it did seem more like a P2P
network, although I just assumed there was also some concept of decentralized
DNS within the project as well.

------
simoncion
Not that I'm criticising the work, but DNS is _already_ P2P; it is -by design-
a federated system. However, -as Mononofu's project's README notes- it is not
_highly tamper resistant_. [0]

I know that one could see this as a petty quibble, but just because something
isn't tamper resistant doesn't mean it's _not_ a P2P system. :)

[0] I make _liberal_ use of this lack of tamper resistance to provide various
levels of ad and tracking blocking for all systems on my LAN. BIND's RPZs (and
mechanisms similar to them) are pretty great.

~~~
teddyh
What about DNSSEC? Does this not add tamper proofing?

~~~
simoncion
I'm not going to talk about DNSSEC [0], but I will make the argument that
DNSSEC isn't DNS, but rather a DNS extension.

[0] Mostly because being able to intelligently talk about it is currently
_way_ above my pay grade.

~~~
teddyh
That’s slightly like arguing that TCP is not IP but an extension of IP.

------
chris_wot
The link to the .mu site is, slightly ironically, not resolving. Anyone got a
different URL/

