

In Response to SOPA, Reddit Meshnet Project picks up steam - Wohlf
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2011/11/23/wary-of-sopa-reddit-users-aim-to-build-a-new-censorship-free-internet/

======
blhack
No offense to the "reddit meshnet project", but the last I checked (this could
have changed) what they're proposing isn't possible with the team that they
have right now.

There are a couple of problems:

1) They don't have a solid hardware platform to work on, and the feeling I've
gotten from talking to some of the people on /r/darknetplan is that they
_really_ don't have the proper understanding of wireless tech to make
something like this happen. People are proposing cheap commodity wifi gear for
this.

While it's certainly possible to do a very high density area with that, it's
_certainly_ not feasible to cover an area like a city, at least not without a
considerable investment, and an understanding that network performance is
going to be abysmal. (And at that point, just use ham radio...)

(Something like what they're proposing might work in an office, not so much in
a neighborhood).

So is a problem, but hypothetically you could just toss hardware at it until
it went away.

2) It's the addressing, stupid.
[http://www.reddit.com/r/darknetplan/comments/m2nd5/its_the_a...](http://www.reddit.com/r/darknetplan/comments/m2nd5/its_the_addressing_stupid/)

I am _definitely_ the last person to discourage people from "doing it wrong"
(<http://thingist.com/t/item/4372/> \- <http://thingist.com/t/item/19766/> \-
<http://thingist.com/t/item/21434/>), but people running this, prepare
yourselves for the reality that you could fail.

~~~
wolfeater
The problem we are definitely running into is that as a crowdsourced project,
we have a lot of people who don't know what they're talking about. However, we
have a small subset that do (myself not included, I'm more aiming to get the
ball rolling than anything) and have been hard at work on the project. There
is a lot more noise than signal right now, but that will change as a more
solid technological platform for local mesh networks arises. Once we have a
basic platform we will begin to address issues such as the addressing and
other scaling issues.

So I guess my final point is that we ARE working on a hardware platform and
then we will work to make this accessible to the average person on
/r/darknetplan . There are hurdles, there are idiots, but we are working on it
and I don't think it is safe to call the project failed until we've had a
chance to actually try.

~~~
femto
What about an native implementation of Freenet? Currently Freenet is an
overlay network, on top of the Internet, but from my limited knowledge of
Freenet, it doesn't have to be that way.

~~~
Wohlf
Freenet, i2p and Tor are good examples of what we are trying to do, but they
are not _quite_ what we want. Our end goal intent is a completely separate
network with it own infrastructure.

~~~
femto
What I meant by a native implementation is one with no underlying
infrastructure. Freenet (protocol) would be running directly on the hardware.
Set up a mesh of (media agnostic) point-to-point links and use the Freenet
protocol to route traffic and turn them into a network. A big caveat is that
Freenet might not scale as required.

One problem you are going to face if you stick to an IP based network is: who
is going to administer the address space? The same is true of any centralised
function. In the "glory" days of community WiFi networks, most fell by the
wayside because of this issue.

~~~
wmf
_who is going to administer the address space?_

How about IPv6 geographic addresses? <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hain-
ipv6-geo-addr-02>

------
trotsky
It's too bad that the people who perennially propose adaptive mesh radios as
some sort of decentralized alternative to public wired networks never consult
anyone that has actually worked with mesh on any scale. If they did they'd
quickly look for some other solution. I thought Greenberg was a real
journalist, what's happened to fact checking?

~~~
jaggederest
"If it wasn't for those damned laws of physics always screwing up my plans..."
basically. Mesh networks have a pretty hard constraint of k/n^2 bandwidth
total where k is an average node's bandwidth and n is the number of nodes. You
quickly get down into the 'bytes per second' range.

~~~
saulrh
This interests me, but I can't find a paper - stuff like "mesh network
bandwidth" simply don't work on scholar. Any chance of a citation?

~~~
wmf
Jinyang Li, Charles Blake, Douglas S. J. De Couto, Hu Imm Lee, and Robert
Morris: Capacity of Ad Hoc Wireless Networks. Mobicom 2001.
<http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/papers/grid:mobicom01/>

Summary: Throughput of a mesh asymptotically approaches 1/7th of the non-mesh
link rate. This is using the 802.11 MAC, but recent softMAC chipsets could be
run in a more mesh-optimized psuedo-802.11 protocol (that has not been
invented yet AFIAK), so you might get performance as good as 1/4th.

~~~
marshray
1/7 or 1/4 is a lot better than k/n^2.

------
4dr144n
The problem has already been fixed. In South Africa, there is a mature,
established private Wireless network spanning huge urban areas AND
interconnecting them. It's based on cheap 5GHz hardware and directional
antennae (mostly yagi). Details here <http://www.ptawug.co.za/>

~~~
skymt
The problem isn't how to create a large-scale wireless network. That's not
simple, but it's been done. The problem is creating a large-scale, _ad-hoc,
mesh_ wireless network, without a central hub that can be shut down.

------
ap22213
These meshnet projects are interesting, and I wish them well.

But... we (democratic republic countries) already have governmental structures
that allow for changing laws. Let's just organize and change the laws.

Aside from the industry-paid demagogues' rhetoric of 'STEALING' on the
internet, we have to objectively think about this problem. We, the public,
define the laws. We define what 'stealing' is. If a majority of the population
is violating the so-called law, and it's hard to identify the specific victims
of the law or even particular damages, then it's probably not a useful law
anymore. Instead of jumping into a subversive massive campaign to overthrow
the existing system, let's just use the tools that have been created to deal
with these types of situations.

The simple fact is that the Internet and digital content has dramatically
changed the way that intellectual property works, and the laws haven't kept
up.

~~~
rjbond3rd
I like your civic-minded approach. But isn't it a bit idealist while the laws
are written by the lobbyists of entrenched multi-billion-dollar businesses? I
sincerely hope that's not the case in your country but it's definitely the
case in mine.

It seems to me it's the (possibility of) technological circumvention itself
which renders the laws outdated. If that's true, then the laws will always lag
behind to the point of absurdity (as appears to be the case now).

Suing grandmothers, software patents, suing farmers downwind of the pollen of
patented plants, etc. Where's the hope of changing those laws which are backed
by multi-billion-dollar industries until lobbyists and campaign contributions
are banished from our law-making process?

~~~
nl
_But isn't it a bit idealist while the laws are written by the lobbyists of
entrenched multi-billion-dollar businesses? I sincerely hope that's not the
case in your country but it's definitely the case in mine._

Fixing that problem isn't impossible. There are a significant precedents where
people have forced governments to act against corporate interests (eg, the
environmental movement).

Even things like the Tea Party show that the major US parties can be co-opted
by people power. Yes, the Tea Party has mostly been co-opted itself, but look
how many entrenched players that removed in such a short period of time. I'd
suggest that is a reasonable model to study for anyone interested in creating
a pro-consumer political movement.

------
nextparadigms
Can the Phantom protocol be combined with this somehow?

<http://code.google.com/p/phantom/>

~~~
Wohlf
I like what I'm reading so far, this might be an excellent protocol to
examine.

~~~
nextparadigms
He has been trying to make it extremely secure and anonymous, and all
communications are end-to-end encrypted. To me it sounds like the ideal
protocol for protection against censorship and spying on the users.

However, I don't know how well it can be combined with a mesh network,
especially one that wants to piggy back on the normal Internet, since this
protocol is meant for a stand alone network. But perhaps it can be modified
for that. It would probably be best to talk to the creator of the protocol
about it directly and ask for his help.

------
darknetplan
Come chat with us!

<http://darknetplan.org/webchat>

------
Pobe
HN commentators, dreaming start-up, crushing starters.

~~~
noptotsch
There is no real start up, yet. But its pillars are being built, yet. And
actually delivering enough of option to be sure its start will be hard to
neglect.

------
agentultra
Not only is the idea itself not unique; other hackers have been working on
this for at least a decade with little practical success. It's hard enough
covering a city with wifi let alone connecting a mesh network over the air.

Rushkoff and others think it's just a matter of time... I remain skeptical.

How many of the groups members have worked in telecommunications and
understand how antennae work, how signal broadcasting and processing works,
how OTA protocols are implemented, etc?

You can't build the kind of robustness that we enjoy today out of commodity
hardware. If you want a decentralized darknet, you'll probably have to dust
off that 56k modem and get used to using fidonet again.

~~~
wladimir
_You can't build the kind of robustness that we enjoy today out of commodity
hardware._

And that's not needed either. The purpose is communicating with each other in
cases that the government brought down or is heavily filtering the internet
(like happens in Egypt, Libia, etc), or in case of a disaster. It doesn't have
to be as fast, or robust as the internet. 56k is plenty enough if you just
want to send messages or small photos.

And in places no internet connectivity exists at all, it's better than
nothing. We're just very, very spoiled.

~~~
agentultra
Amen.

------
samarudge
Forgive my ineptitude, but how does this differ from 'The Deep Web' available
on Tor minus the cable coming out of your house?

While I agree SOPA is a terrible idea, internet censorship and having a
central controlling organization (Or group of organizations) isn't such a bad
thing. Look at Deep Web, it seems, to me, to be primarily used for illegal
operations (drugs trade, child pornography and other nastys). The way I see
it, this effort would be much better applied to resolving the issues we have
with the current internet, reducing centralization and reliance on ISPs rather
than "to shit with the working system lets start again".

And that's not even touching the technical aspects, the internet as we know it
still isn't anywhere near perfect (IPV4 as an example). Are they expecting
this to happen overnight? Some of the greatest minds of the last few
generations have worked to make the internet what it is now, if university's
are "experimenting" with this stuff it's clearly a long way from a realistic
option.

That being said, wireless technologies are always improving. I'm sure the
military already have some similar mesh based network (all be it on a smaller
scale) far more advanced than anything we've seen (Assuming this since the
majority of technological advances in communication originated from or were
improved by the military). It's by no means a worthless project but I think
the idea that in 6/12 months you can buy a box that gives you access to an un-
modorated, unfiltered, private internet is a little ridiculous

------
wmf
The Occupiers are ahead of the Redditors, having actually bought and deployed
some hardware, although that isn't saying much since both groups are writing
manifestos instead of code. <http://freenetworkfoundation.org/>
[http://mashable.com/2011/11/14/how-occupy-wall-street-is-
bui...](http://mashable.com/2011/11/14/how-occupy-wall-street-is-building-its-
own-internet-video/)

------
int3rnaut
I'm against crazy government control as much as the next guy, but is creating
a decentralized system in this manner really the answer to this problem? I'm
not agreeing or disagreeing, I am just really curious.

There seems to be a big decentralization movement in recent times (bitcoins!)
but even as a person against the extremes of SOPA, I can at least appreciate
the securities and benefits of a "traditional" governing body, no matter how
ridiculous some members of government are--I'm just speaking as a not so tech
savvy person, but to me one of the biggest psychological hurdles for a project
like this is giving control to a group of people I am unfamiliar with--there
is some sense of a rapport (even if there is some lack of trust) with the
traditional government (just like with banks as I allude to bitcoins) that to
me is a big obstacle for the meshnet growing to a degree where it becomes a
true meshnet.

Either way, I love the hustle, and admire the project immensely.

------
wladimir
I haven't completely read the OP, But why isn't Openmesh ( <http://www.open-
mesh.org/> previously B.A.T.M.A.N. ) mentioned anywhere in this thread yet? I
like the fact that this is getting a lot of energy behind it, but the idea
itself is not new. Please don't re-invent any wheels, time is too short for
that.

------
jebari
Enthusiastic people with out technical knowledge are needed. First off a good
idea with leadership can succeed in this area. The way to make mesh work which
has not been tried has nothing to do with technology or any other comment
issue found here. It has to do with how people get the internet right now. If
you set up consumer sales side of your mesh project to look like any other ISP
from the consumer perspective, i.e. you call up a number and a few hours or
days later you have internet then it can work. Issues specific to mesh are you
need to focus on islands, so you can only offer service in an ever growing
area. As the mesh grows sales can grow until the islands merge. In the
meantime, before islands merge you need to have access to old fashioned wire
as well as after they merge. Ultimately its just another business model. It
can work if deployed well.

------
charlieok
I think what you want here is a device you can just plug in, and if it finds
any neighbors it's in business. Home WiFi plus whatever kind of additional
radio is best suited to join a "city mesh".

So yeah, random people on reddit probably aren't going to come up with this
anywhere close to as fast as a small team with just the right skills.

Making and selling a great piece of idiot-proof hardware that does this sounds
like a decent startup idea. And now that I've thought about it this much, I'm
guessing there must already be some startups selling such a thing (anyone have
firsthand knowledge?).

What reddit brings to the table is a large number of interested participants.
If a couple of those people live within range of me, the idea suddenly becomes
one I might consider buying and plugging in now, today.

So for that reason, I like this reddit group.

------
wcchandler
This might not be a popular opinion, but as an individual who's capable of
designing and implementing this, I'd rather vote in a politician who projects
my ideals.

------
Wohlf
At this point, we're considering all contributions equally.

~~~
cperciva
You may like the concept that all ideas are equally valid, but unfortunately
reality disagrees.

~~~
noptotsch
Reality is defined what happens NOW in its complete context. That would be
considering all ideas. Through considering, these ideas should indeed be
equally. And what happens NOW in its complete context, what is considered
suitable, valuable to oppose with is probably created in the future.

------
VigUi7vv8G2
Wow, I was just in the IRC channel and people there are saying they don't want
exit nodes because of "liability". Completely ridiculous.

~~~
vidarh
Really? What is ridiculous about it? In the face of potential laws like SOPA
which requires restrictions on routing traffic to certain destinations, it
would seem that worrying about the potential liability of a network with exit
nodes allowing traffic to the "regular" internet is exactly something one
should worry about.

------
CamperBob
There may be ways to overcome the limitations of mesh networking, as outlined
by many people here, but you will need to think outside the mesh, so to speak.
It is probably best to think of the mesh as the "last mile" component rather
than the backbone.

One idea: a $5 laser pointer can be modulated at well over 100 Mbit/s.
Everyone in an urban area who can see one side of a building can bounce laser
beams off of it. (Data recovery and collision resolution are left as
exercises...)

~~~
_exec
I'm really interested in testing this idea, do you have any links / papers /
online projects? All I can find on Google is audio-over-laser projects..

~~~
wmf
The keyword is "free space optical". <http://ronja.twibright.com/>

------
bobsoap
Even if this project isn't backed or supported by the "right" technically
qualified people right now, I have no doubt that that will change as soon as
the government-controlled internet becomes a noticeable reality. This is only
the beginning. It will grow.

------
1010101111001
I think it comes down to what the goals are.

If the goal is to connect peer to peer with a small group of people you know
in person and can trust, I see great potential. People congregate in small
groups. Facebook friends, Skype contacts, etc. The advantage here is that
third parties like Facebook, Microsoft and a gazillion advertisers are not
involved. If it's small like that, it's doable as an overlay without using
wireless as long as at least one person has a reachable IP and can act as the
keeper of everyone else's address info.

If the goal is to create some sort of www replacement that must scale to
global internet sizes, where any stranger can connect, and where kids are
allowed to do all the things they're not allowed to do legally on the www, I
see big problems.

~~~
slowpoke
_> and where kids are allowed to do all the things they're not allowed to do
legally on the www, I see big problems._

How in the seven hells is this a problem of the network protocol? Or any other
technology, really? I seriously don't want to take this offtopic, but what you
are describing is a problem of the parents/guardians first and foremost, and
has absolutely nada to do with the technology we are discussing.

Appeals to emotion like this and the sad truth that they work so well are the
exact reason we need decentralized, censorship-resistant networks in the first
place. To put it polemically: No, I don't want to "think of the children"
because that's the job of their goddamn parents.

~~~
1010101111001
Not protocols, but usage. Not emotion, but common sense.

If Skype, a peer to peer network that uses a proprietary protocol and third
party servers (neither of which is a prerequisite for a peer to peer network),
was used primarily for file sharing over encrypted links, they would have some
"big problems", as in "heavily funded lobbyists and plaintiffs", to deal with.
These are the same "big problems" that are the driving force behind SOPA and
consequently the same ones that have injected some steam into this reddit
"think tank". SOPA has some interesting language where it refers to "or any
successor protocol". Perhaps the next revision, or the next bill of this
nature, will include language that refers to "any internetwork", present or
future.

How a peer to peer network is used and who uses it does make a difference in
terms of its acceptance and survival, even if in theory it shouldn't.

------
maeon3
Eben moglen already has plans for freeing the internet from the tyranny of the
few:

[http://m.zdnet.com/blog/networking/freedom-box-freeing-
the-i...](http://m.zdnet.com/blog/networking/freedom-box-freeing-the-internet-
one-server-at-a-time/698)

