Meshnet and new internet

Hey lain. What do you think about building a kind of new decentralized and anonymized net? If net neutrality gets axed, this would be a place that people could go to instead. In a way, this has been done before on small scales like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B0u6nvcTsI What are your thoughts about achiveing something like this or how we might go about to do this?

I found someone who wants to achieve the same goal but for smaller traffic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXTEWFb_6w4

>cjdns >openvpn >ssl wrapped TUN interfaces this has generally been solved at the DPI level. Whole sale degredation of service hasn't and really can't unless you bridge multiple service providers. That means a physical meshnet. For physical meshnets, look TVWS-wifi. It uses digital tv white space. Most US regions allow civilian use without icense with the caveat of using channel jumping. Something common in the HAM community with certain bands.

The problem with ideas like this is, that a meshnet won't give you access to content outside of it except if you have some sort of bridge into the internet within it. But then you are still at the mercy of the ISP through which the bridge goes. The idea of a meshnet is really romantic, but there just isn't much worthwhile local content out there.

I've thought about this. In a way, this (implementation of a meshnet) is partly a social problem. In mexico, there is a community up between the mountains which is so small that the telecomm monopoly didn't bother to service that town. And so the people implemented their own cell phone service, and pay much less than the company would otherwise have charged them. I've thought about implementing per-building meshnets already. A single gateway to the ISP for the whole building, and one router per apartment. Which would obviously be much cheaper. At a greater scale you can coordinate with the city jall to implement a WAN which interfaces with a country-wide service provider... Of course, how many of you think would be willing to try this? Are you thinking of all your limitations? Such a thing would e a nice chance for anyone with enough tech savvy to make the shekel without depending on a big corp. But I can already see people finding reasons for it not to happen.

>>6146 false. you can easily make it routable to the outside.

>>6137 >What do you think about building a kind of new decentralized and anonymized net? If net neutrality gets axed, this would be a place that people could go to instead. What exactly do you think is going to happen without net neutrality? Some big companies will pay more to get faster connections (which they already do in other ways anyway), and other things like bittorrent might be throttled. So what? How is switching to a tiny, zero content, 10kb/s mesh network going to fix anything?

>>6174 >and other things like bittorrent might be throttled. So what? answered your own question. >>6147 I agree. Problem is that the ISPs would eventually catch on and add a no-subnetting clause to their TOS(which of course is legal because every batsoykaf crazy thing is legal).

>>6146 >a meshnet won't give you access to content outside The internet doesn't give you access to content outside itself except through a gateway either. >>6151 How? >>6174 Well, in 2005, before we had the regulations in question, Canadian Telecom Telus wouldn't let customers access a website supporting a labor strike. In 2007, Comcast stopped all customers from using bittorrent at all. From 2007 to 2009, AT&T customers on iPhone couldn't use Skype because AT&T wanted to force them to make real phonecalls. From 2011 to 2018, AT&T, Sprint, & Verizon all blocked google wallet because they had an app they wanted customers to use instead.

>>6195 >2018 soykaf. Typo. I meant 2013. It's dark and I can't see my numpad.

>>6195 Routing. Anything set outside the LAN can be routed out by the gateways using iptables or similarly normal networking stuff. All you need is nodes that normally have access to the internet.

>>6197 >routed out by the gateways Those would be, "Some sort of bridge." The point is to do without gateways that connect to an ISP.

>>6198 You realize that your routing table literally has a gateway field to route your traffic even on a traditional LAN?

>>6199 You realize that the phrase, "That connect to an ISP," was part of that sentence? Gateways are okay. Gateways that connect to an ISP are the original problem again.

>>6200 You're fuarrrking around with semantics. Bridge or not, effectively from the topological perspective its the same thing. The routing table for bridge connections include the gateway field to the disparate network. You seem to have some sort of bias against gateways. What 'problem' do you see with them?

>>6201 You're not listening. The probem is not with gateways. The problem is with connecting to an ISP. Once you connect to an ISP, you're just using the regular internet with all the problems that entails. Using a meshnet to connect to the internet would have all the same problems as connecting straight to the internet. The ISP is the problem. The point of using a meshnet at all would be to not connect to an ISP. Using the meshnet just to connect to the ISP wouldn't solve anything. What you need is content on the meshnet itself.

>>6210 You realize you can do both right? Subnet off the meshnet and provide a dns tld for the meshnet address space and still provide access outside. Why manually have to import everything into the network when any node has the ability to archive necessary information. The only isolation we (you)idolize is forced isolation like the cubanet. What is it you're trying to 'solve'? Spread out gateways to the internet over multiple isps aggregated by users to average out connection inconsistencies. So, lets recap. Meshnets are simply network topology. There's no intrinsic requirement that it has to be isolated. Thats simply your bias.

>>6184 >answered your own question. err, no. Even with throttling, bittorrent over the internet will always be faster than bittorrent over a mesh network so what problem are you solving? It's not speed. >>6214 >Meshnets are simply network topology. The topic of the thread is an alternative network running on alternative infrastructure to the internet. >There's no intrinsic requirement that it has to be isolated All networks are isolated unless someone bridges them. As you pointed out building a bridge or gateway or whatever to the regular internet is technologically trivial but I don't think that's the point. It may have legal and political problems associated with it, like Tor exit nodes.

>>6219 >Even with throttling, bittorrent over the internet will always be faster than bittorrent over a mesh network so what problem are you solving? It's not speed. Suppose bittorrent is blocked completely.

>>6214 >What is it you're trying to 'solve'? The problem stated in the OP. The problem that the thread is about: > If net neutrality gets axed What will happen then is what we've seen happen before: ISPs will block users from reaching or posting content they don't like, whether stopping people from reaching a labor union's website or not allowing customers to send emails critical of their service. Hosting your union site or your mail server on the mesh would provide a way for those users on the mesh around ISP content filtering, but not those users connecting to the mesh through a gateway from the internet. Connecting to regular internet sites from such a gateway would also not get you past ISP content filters. So a meshnet solves the problem of losing net neutrality, but only if at no point do your packets travel from the meshnet to the internet.

We just need to upload all our animes to whatever non internet meshnet we decide to use, that way the old internet will have no way to compete. But getting serious some anons here have mentioned that whatever net is made accessing the current internet is still the objective while I think we should ditch the old internet completely and putting content on the new networks seems to be a key strategy, just add a clones of already existing social networks and everything will be done. I like OP's video, the stuff they're doing in detroit but it may not be a universal solution, still I see that video and Kraftwerk's Antenna plays in my head https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHlcSwBsyks The question now is what infrastructure can take over the old cables?

>>6223 >>6230 If you guys are worried about censorship then isn't this the reason VPNs and Tor and I2P exist? The internet is bigger than just US cable companies.

>>6233 Not an expert, but Wouldn't the same problems exists even on Tor? If Comcast decides only a few sites (IP addresses) get access at a reasonable speed, then all types of traffic to any other node, including Tor nodes we're talking to over the internet via ISPs, gets blocked. It isn't just HTTP over TCP, it's everything that the corps don't want you to have access to that gets fuarrrked. The point of building a meshnet as per this thread is to have a completely separate infrastructure, that maybe has gateways to the Internet as long as the Internet isn't completely fuarrrked. Right?

>>6235 This is the reason why meek transport was developed. It uses amazon, azure or google virtual servers as Tor bridges. ISPs can't block Google, Amazon or Microsoft all of a sudden, not even in most totalitarian soykafholes, These guys don't seem to care by now, but having one of nodes hosted by these companies may be a risk for US citizens.

>>6235 >>6233 VPNs wouldn't solve this at all. TOR would have the same problem meshnets have (hidden service would be fine, but you'd still be at the mercy of the exit node's ISP). Anyway, this was a thread about using meshnets for that. We have other threads on meshnet general, and (I would assume) on using TOR.

>>6240 There's also the fact that the ISP could just not let you use TOR. TOR traffic is easily identified as such, so once the ISP is allowed to decide traffic you're allowed to have, they could just block all TOR traffic. That's what unlisted TOR bridges are for, but most people don't have those.

>>6235 >Wouldn't the same problems exists even on Tor? If Comcast decides only a few sites (IP addresses) get access at a reasonable speed, then all types of traffic to any other node, including Tor nodes we're talking to over the internet via ISPs, gets blocked. There are other countries in the world. Exit your VPN or Tor in Europe and access all your "censored" websites. >The point of building a meshnet as per this thread is to have a completely separate infrastructure, Yes but that's dumb if you already have tools that solve the problem more effectively. Comeon guys. Losing net neutrality is like kicking dead whales down the beach but you're not exactly living in China.

>>6233 >If you guys are worried about censorship then isn't this the reason VPNs and Tor and I2P exist? Yes, suppose those all got blocked. They own the tubes. Basically anything coming through them, they can manipulate however they want. This is why alternative infrastructure must be built.

>>6252 But this is what we're saying, for people in America at least, the extreme case would be that we can't even get to our VPNs in Europe. I wonder if one could chain radio-based nodes up to some place like Greenland, and there have some high-traffic nodes that talk to the rest of the world that isn't owned by Comcast.

>>6265 >Yes, suppose those all got blocked. Why? We're talking about big cable companies trying to squeeze more profit, not a totalitarian state deliberately firewalling the whole country. But even if we were talking about the latter, Tor, I2P, VPNs all still work in China. Americans are getting way too carried away here. You need to perspective.

>>6271 Tor doesn't work without bridges and even with them on most don't work, and even if they do the packets start getting dropped after a while, same for VPNs. Shadowsocks gets around it but it's not anonymous and actually easy to track, it's only good for circumventing censorship. Not a lot of options then, are there? I2P might work, but let's be honest eepsites are not a suitable replacement for clearnet. Best bet would be a good meshnet, maybe cjdns, then bridge out until big companies start moving over or we have good enough replacements. Obviously this is all hypothetical and highly unlikely to ever happen.

>>6252 >Exit your VPN or Tor in Europe The problem is that the ISP controls your connection to TOR or to the VPN server. They can see everything you send in to the VPN and how much you send in to TOR, and they can stop you from sending things to them. >>6271 >Why? Well, they cut off all bittorrent traffic once because piracy. They could claim to be cutting off all TOR and VPN traffic because CP.

>>6282 >Tor doesn't work without bridges and even with them on most don't work, and even if they do the packets start getting dropped after a while, same for VPNs. The point is technology cannot censor the internet, even in a totalitarian state like China. And ISPs are not trying to censor the web. Maybe they block 1 or 2 sites or their competitors or whatever. It's nothing that Tor or a public proxy can't get past. >it's not anonymous and actually easy to track, it's only good for circumventing censorship. If Comcast blocks Skype or something and you hop onto a VPN to connect anyway you are not going to jail. >I2P might work, but let's be honest eepsites are not a suitable replacement for clearnet. Best bet would be a good meshnet, In what way do you think I2P is deficient and a hypothetical meshnet wouldn't be? >>6286 >TOR Opinion discarded.

>>6287 >It's nothing that Tor or a public proxy can't get past. Except, like I already said, Tor can easily be blocked? >If Comcast blocks Skype or something and you hop onto a VPN to connect anyway you are not going to jail. If everyone else is tech-savvy enough to setup a VPN then I guess you can warrant the use of a software that can only be used if everyone you know has a VPN too. Again assuming VPNs aren't blocked (something China can already do easily). >In what way do you think I2P is deficient and a hypothetical meshnet wouldn't be? It's slow and even if it doesn't get blocked people might eventually be too paranoid to bother. I've heard people say they're scared of using Tor before. On the other hand, a meshnet can be fast, free, and easy to use. Just connect and surf the web like normal. Can't be blocked and if everyone sets up their router for it, governments couldn't stop it. Can also hide 'em physically.

>>6288 >Except, like I already said, Tor can easily be blocked? >Again assuming VPNs aren't blocked (something China can already do easily). >In what way do you think I2P is deficient and The difference is China is a totalitarian government firewalling the whole country. That's not what will happen after net neutrality is gone in the US. Even if websites start getting blocked, different ISPs will bock different sites and have zero incentive to go as far as China in blocking Tor and VPNs. And more importantly, the reason China's ban on Tor and VPNs is effective (but still not 100% effective), is because cops might bust down you door if you try to use it. Even if your ISP tries to block Tor for some reason, the government is not going to take you away in a white van if you connect to a Tor bridge. There is a serious lack of perspective going on here. >(I2P) It's slow And your wireless mesh network is fast is it? lol >people might eventually be too paranoid to bother. I've heard people say they're scared of using Tor before. Tor and I2P are not illegal and are not going to be illegal just because of net neutrality. I don't understand what you mean. >Can't be blocked and if everyone sets up their router for it, governments couldn't stop it. How did you get to this conclusion? Anyone can trivially follow the cables and/or radiowaves back to your house and cut/jam them. Or are we living in a double standards world where Tor and I2P somehow get 100% blocked but the government is cool with random meshnets?

I am glad that mesh nets are getting more attention now that Net Neutrality is a household topic. I'd like to clarify something though. ISP's don't care about free speech. They care about money. They want Net Neutrality repealed in order to make money. Sites where you will see problems are going to be hulu, netflix, and amazon video, if they don't pay the fast lane ransom. A mesh net will not make these services faster. Here's a very long, boring video about net neutrality. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z_nBhfpmk4 Basically every FCC Chairman for the past 20 years has been on the payroll of some ISP or related lobbying firm and is easily and provably just as corrupt as Pai. The FCC is not your friend. They are not there to help you. You have been brainwashed. Net neutrality is YOU deciding whether you want the government or corporations to control the internet. The correct answer is Neither, and thus net neutrality should be tabled. That's exactly what Pai is doing. Now, why he's doing it is another matter. I think you'll see when he leaves the position that he'll get a fat paycheck from some ISP or another. Just like every other FCC chairman has.

>>6291 >The difference is China is a totalitarian government firewalling the whole country. That's not what will happen after net neutrality is gone in the US. Even if websites start getting blocked, different ISPs will bock different sites and have zero incentive to go as far as China in blocking Tor and VPNs. I'm not even disagreeing with this, I said in my first post this was all completely hypothetical and very unlikely to happen. I was just offering my take on the options should any of this happen. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually try cutting off competitors or sites supporting political causes they don't align with many years from now. After all, corporations aren't bound by the same rules as government. But that's besides the point. > And more importantly, the reason China's ban on Tor and VPNs is effective (but still not 100% effective), is because cops might bust down you door if you try to use it. They don't do this, they can't arrest everyone who touches Tor or a VPN. >Even if your ISP tries to block Tor for some reason, the government is not going to take you away in a white van if you connect to a Tor bridge. I mean, let's be honest, people also used to say the government would never spy on its own citizens. How did that go? Not to mention lots of Western governments are banning encryption these days. > There is a serious lack of perspective going on here. I think you need to calm down a little. No one's saying this is going to happen. There's nothing wrong with thinking ahead a little and weighing our options. > And your wireless mesh network is fast is it? lol Yeah, cjdns is pretty speedy and B.A.T.M.A.N. has scaled really well in places throughout Europe. > Tor and I2P are not illegal and are not going to be illegal just because of net neutrality. I don't understand what you mean. Never said they were, but your average joe is going to see something advertised as a way to circumvent censorship and think only criminals would use it. And indeed I've seen this happen. > How did you get to this conclusion? Anyone can trivially follow the cables and/or radiowaves back to your house and cut/jam them. Or are we living in a double standards world where Tor and I2P somehow get 100% blocked but the government is cool with random meshnets? There's a difference between blocking Tor and I2P vs. tracking out every mesh node and jamming the airwaves, which would interfere with legitimate use-cases. Firstly you'd still have to physically track them down and secondly you'd then have to go out of your way to jam or cut each of them's cables. That takes much more manpower.

>>6293 >Sites where you will see problems are going to be hulu, netflix, and amazon video It's not going to be a problem for those sites. They will pay but there'll be nothing stopping ISPs from paywalling sites like this. It's not unreasonable to expect that they'll start offering different packages to consumers. Most normal people wouldn't even notice if you restricted them to the top few hundred most popular sites (i.e. those that can pay their ransom) and so they'll try to extract more money from people like you or me who want "something extra".

>>6294 >They don't do this, they can't arrest everyone who touches Tor or a VPN. Yes, it is the threat of possibly being arrested that deters people. >Still, I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually try cutting off competitors or sites supporting political causes they don't align with many years from now. Me too. But there is a big difference between blocking an inconvenient political website because you can and putting constant time and money into renewing your list of Tor bridges everyday. This whole discussion went from mild capitalist diplopia where ISPs extort extra money out of Netflix, leapfrogged China and jumped straight to 1984 for no reason. >I mean, let's be honest, people also used to say the government would never spy on its own citizens. They spy on citizens because it is cheap and easy. Physically lifting people off the street in white vans isn't. >Yeah, cjdns is pretty speedy No protocol will be speedy when it's going across an ad hoc wireless mesh. I2P is censorship resistant and runs on the existing internet, with or without net neutrality. >Never said they were, but your average joe is going to see something advertised as a way to circumvent censorship and think only criminals would use it. And indeed I've seen this happen. How would a meshnet different? Wouldn't the ISPs who also own all the TV and media companies start demonizing them for this exact reason? >There's a difference between blocking Tor and I2P vs. tracking out every mesh node and jamming the airwaves, which would interfere with legitimate use-cases. Enumerating Tor bridges is not trivial. And China does jam radio waves at their borders for this reason. My point is that the technology is slightly different but the same rules apply. I don't see how a mesh network would have an kind of advantage. >Can't be blocked and if everyone sets up their router for it, governments couldn't stop it. I think is a fair point though if society can get to this point soon. Taking down a country wide mesh network after it is already build might be as challenging as gun control is now.

>>6297 >But there is a big difference between blocking an inconvenient political website because you can and putting constant time and money into renewing your list of Tor bridges everyday. There's a list of publicly available bridges on the official site. Writing s cript to check that and update your list every twelve hours would take maybe fifteen minutes.

>>6299 >>6297 Also, most people don't connect to Tor through a bridge relay. They should, but they don't.

>>6291 >Anyone can trivially follow the cables and/or radiowaves back to your house and cut/jam them. Or are we living in a double standards world where Tor and I2P somehow get 100% blocked but the government is cool with random meshnets? We're talking about ISPs doing this, not government, so if they cut your cables or block your signal, that's illegal interference. However, without net neutrality, it is legal for them to just not connect anybody to Tor. So they can block all tor traffic by their customers by just not sending those packets.

>>6297 >Yes, it is the threat of possibly being arrested that deters people. Except again they haven't arrested anyone for simply using it, and so they still do it. Not with the best results, but they still use it. >Me too. But there is a big difference between blocking an inconvenient political website because you can and putting constant time and money into renewing your list of Tor bridges everyday. This isn't a discussion of "your ISP probably won't bother with this" or "your ISP will probably do that", it's about, worst-case scenario, what can we do to avoid the problems our ISPs might impose on us in the future? >This whole discussion went from mild capitalist diplopia where ISPs extort extra money out of Netflix, leapfrogged China and jumped straight to 1984 for no reason. You're the only one that keeps insisting on steering the conversation into what ISPs or the government might do, my only point is that all things considered I think a big enough meshnet would be the most appropriate course of action should there ever come a need for one. >They spy on citizens because it is cheap and easy. Physically lifting people off the street in white vans isn't. What makes you think calling up a police officer to arrest you isn't easy enough for them? They do this all the time, don't they? >No protocol will be speedy when it's going across an ad hoc wireless mesh. I2P is censorship resistant and runs on the existing internet, with or without net neutrality. I just gave you examples of protocols that have proven to be speedy enough in real use, but if you really need more reading, look up the strong meshnets in Catalonia and Freifunk. Those are doing very well. There are also some projects in the US but they're not as big yet. >How would a meshnet different? Wouldn't the ISPs who also own all the TV and media companies start demonizing them for this exact reason? And how would people tell if it's a meshnet or not? It's just an access point to them. >Enumerating Tor bridges is not trivial. And China does jam radio waves at their borders for this reason. You mean the public bridges that China can scan through and blacklist? Sounds pretty easy to me. Also jamming radio waves at their borders is very different from jamming them in urban areas where many people need them not just for home but for work. >My point is that the technology is slightly different but the same rules apply. Not really. >I don't see how a mesh network would have an kind of advantage. Sigh, let me reiterate then. They're free, easy for anyone to connect to, will never have anything blocked (so no having to find different proxies or VPN providers), and more welcoming than downloading and setting up the Tor browser. Heck your average person would only know how to use Tor in the browser anyway. Basically, it would work more like the internet does now. >I think is a fair point though if society can get to this point soon. Taking down a country wide mesh network after it is already build might be as challenging as gun control is now. Then I guess you answered your own question.

>>6299 >There's a list of publicly available bridges on the official site. Writing s cript to check that and update your list every twelve hours would take maybe fifteen minutes. Man you so smart no one ever fuarrrking thought of that. Go to https://bridges.torproject.org/bridges, solve a non-trivial visual captcha and get 3 bridges. You can also set up 500 unique emails addresses and get them emailed to you 3 at a time. Good luck with your 15 minute script. >>6300 >Also, most people don't connect to Tor through a bridge relay. They would if Tor was actively being blocked. That's the only reason bridges exist. >>6301 >We're talking about ISPs doing this, not government, Actually we're talking about government (>>6288) but I agree that the thread is supposed to be about net neutrality. >So they can block all tor traffic by their customers by just not sending those packets. Well, no they can't because of bridges. But if you know literally nothing about Tor or actual internet censorship outside the USA then I can understand why you might think that. >if they (ISPs) cut your cables or block your signal, that's illegal interference That's true enough though.

>>6303 >This isn't a discussion of "your ISP probably won't bother with this" or "your ISP will probably do that", it's about, worst-case scenario, what can we do to avoid the problems our ISPs might impose on us in the future? Fine. Tor's existing threat model already includes totalitarian governments that have more money, resources and motivation than any US cable company. Your fantasy "worst case scenario" can be trivially solved with existing solutions. >Sigh, let me reiterate then. They're free, easy for anyone to connect to, will never have anything blocked (so no having to find different proxies or VPN providers), and more welcoming than downloading and setting up the Tor browser. What hardware does it run on? You're going to get Microsoft to bundle everything into Windows so nobody needs to download any software? >Basically, it would work more like the internet does now. Except it will be a fraction of the bandwidth and have less content than I2P. You are not playing fair, friend.

>>6307 >Fine. Tor's existing threat model already includes totalitarian governments that have more money, resources and motivation than any US cable company. Your fantasy "worst case scenario" can be trivially solved with existing solutions. You mean the ones I already said are unsuitable for it and why? >What hardware does it run on? You're going to get Microsoft to bundle everything into Windows so nobody needs to download any software? Are you playing dumb? Do you even know how mesh networks work? >Except it will be a fraction of the bandwidth and have less content than I2P. I2P has zero content already and is slow as soykaf. >You are not playing fair, friend. I don't even understand what you're trying to say with this post?

>>6308 >Are you playing dumb? Do you even know how mesh networks work? You said it was free and easy and requires no downloads. I'm calling bullsoykaf. Now is your chance to elaborate.

>>6310 >You said it was free and easy and requires no downloads. I'm calling bullsoykaf. Now is your chance to elaborate. Well, yeah. You just need to connect to a router running (for example) cjdns and you'll be able to connect to any site in the group of peers. If you want to help contribute to the network and add to the swarm, you get your router and install cjdns on it. You would've known this if you bothered to research what you were arguing.

>>6305 > they can't because of bridges. Your bridge would have to be in an area where ISPs can't or don't block tor (because the bridge is visibly connecting to tor).

>>6311 >install cjdns on it. How do you do this with no downloads? (Let alone without buying a router.)

>>6314 Obviously the one hosting the network would have to download the software but this goes without saying. No one using it has to make any changes to their routine. Why do you insist on nitpicking? You're really just begging for an argument without anything to say.

>>6316 So you do need to download some software? And what is stopping the ISPs from blocking cjdns the same way the blocked Tor and I2P and VPNs and everything else?

>>6316 >Why do you insist on nitpicking? Seriously? You make up bullsoykaf 1984 threat models to discredit Tor and then glossover everything related to mesh and say it's free and fast and requires no downloads? >I don't even understand what you're trying to say with this post? I'm saying you are full of soykaf.

>>6318 > So you do need to download some software? And what is stopping the ISPs from blocking cjdns the same way the blocked Tor and I2P and VPNs and everything else? Because a mesh network does not ever need to connect to an ISP, this is common knowledge. >>6320 >Seriously? You make up bullsoykaf 1984 threat models to discredit Tor Bullsoykaf? When they're being used right now? Are you retarded? >and then glossover everything related to mesh and say it's free and fast and requires no downloads? You don't even know how a mesh network works, why would I argue with you about it? >I'm saying you are full of soykaf. Christ the quality in this board just keeps getting worse.

>>6314 >how do you... Download it ahead of time... If people can't get to it, put it on a flash disk & distribute, embed it in an image w/ steno, whatever. Hyperboria isn't huge, but there's enough people with a node up (myself included) that, if someone hears about it and needs the software, they can find someone within an hour's travel time. The big problem I see is that the majority of CJDNS nodes are VPSes which are connected via tunnels over the internet with UDP. It's effectively a big VPN with straight hardware connections in some places. So the way things are, a completely locked down internet would fuarrrk us just as much as it would Tor. But access to the software isn't the problem.

Also, see https://fc00.org for a cool map of Hyperboria (the main CJDNS net). I'm 0eb6. I think *.lurk.space is another lainon, but I can't remember

>>6324 >The big problem I see is that the majority of CJDNS nodes are VPSes which are connected via tunnels over the internet with UDP. It's effectively a big VPN with straight hardware connections in some places. So the way things are, a completely locked down internet would fuarrrk us just as much as it would Tor. That's only how it is now. Ideally once this network matures and enough people are running the software they will peer their routers with each other so it works outside the ISP.

>>6323 >You don't even know how a mesh network works Very astute. Clearly you have an idea in your head and you haven't explained as much as you think you have. It is human nature and I'm sure there is a name for it but I want you to be aware that just because people cannot read your mind it does not make them "retards". http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/020509/keysarresearch.shtml Let me make a template for you so we can progress with the thread. Tor/I2P/VPN is not a viable solution because ____, a meshnet does not have this problem because ____. In theory, a sufficiently resourced and motivated ISP could 100% block Tor/I2P/VPNs etc, but they cannot block a meshnet because _____ The hardware a meshnet runs on is ______, and this makes it free because _____ A meshnet does not require extra software like Tor Browser because ____ >Christ the quality in this board just keeps getting worse. You spilled a lot of soykaf in this thread with zero elaboration. Everyone else has been playing very fairly in comparison.

>>6330 > >You don't even know how a mesh network works > Very astute. Clearly you have an idea in your head and you haven't explained as much as you think you have. This is a creative way of saying "I know I don't but I'll keep asking you to spoonfeed me facts to continue the conversation". And I have been explaining myself fine, you just seem to like asking me to repeat myself. >Let me make a template for you so we can progress with the thread. I'll summarize for you: > Tor/I2P/VPN is not a viable solution because ____, a meshnet does not have this problem because ____. A. can be blocked at the ISP level, cumbersome for newbies, not default. B. does not ever go through an ISP, secure by default, easy to use. > In theory, a sufficiently resourced and motivated ISP could 100% block Tor/I2P/VPNs etc, but they cannot block a meshnet because _____ It doesn't go through an ISP. > The hardware a meshnet runs on is ______, and this makes it free because _____ A. The router (or hardware connected to the router). B. The user doesn't have to do anything, just connect to an open hotspot. > A meshnet does not require extra software like Tor Browser because ____ It runs inside a hotspot. > >Christ the quality in this board just keeps getting worse. > You spilled a lot of soykaf in this thread with zero elaboration. Everyone else has been playing very fairly in comparison. I said all of this already. Please do some reading next time.

>>6330 Different guy here, but: Tor/I2P/VPN is not a viable solution because the ISP can just block you (or your bridge, provided it's in the US) from using that protocol, a meshnet does not have this problem because it doesn't communicate through an ISP. In theory, a sufficiently resourced and motivated ISP could 100% block Tor/I2P/VPNs etc, but they cannot block a meshnet because they play no part in routing the packets on a meshnet like they do for tor/i2p packets. You (or at least one person in every area) will have to have a router (which you'll have to buy) and some specialized software (which you'll have to download, possibly from the already working mesh routers) on it though.

>>6335 >I know I don't but I'll keep asking you to spoonfeed me facts to continue the conversation If this is all "common knowledge" and not just bullsoykaf you made up then feel free to link to a 3rd party source and I'll read that. >A. can be blocked at the ISP level, As explained in multiple posts, China controls every packet that goes in and out of the country and they can't stop people using Tor/I2P/VPNs. How exactly is Comcast going to do a better job? >It doesn't go through an ISP. How do I connect to someone in France then? Magic? >A. The router (or hardware connected to the router). You mean the router everyone gets from their ISP? The one full of backdoors and you don't legally own? That's a good idea. Or does everyone need to buy new hardware? How do routers connect to other routers without going through ISP cables? >B. The user doesn't have to do anything, just connect to an open hotspot. Why is everything so fuarrrking vague? If you mean WiFi just say fuarrrking Wifi. >It runs inside a hotspot. Access point* I think I understand what the fuarrrk you are talking about now. How does the "hotspot" connect to other routers without going through ISP cables then?

I'd like to re-iterate the point of this thread: people want to build *alternative infrastructure*. That means, not relying on a profit-motivated megacorp to provide your network connection. Why? because, very shortly in the US at least(and increasingly in other parts of the world too), your ISP could become very unreliable. Your ISP could decide not to let you use their network anymore because they just don't like you. No amount of tricky tunnelling will fix that fundamental, underlying problem. Whether such-and-such workaround is really effective isn't the question here. The question is, how do we get some *independence* from the cable corps.

>>6337 >If this is all "common knowledge" and not just bullsoykaf you made up then feel free to link to a 3rd party source and I'll read that. I highly recommend looking up the terms being used in the discussion if you don't understand them. There's no shame. >You mean the router everyone gets from their ISP? or you know any router >How does the "hotspot" connect to other routers without going through ISP cables then? by using Wireless Firewire technlology.

>>6339 >>by using Wireless Firewire technlology. this is a joke btw, wi-fi isn't short for Wireless Firewire, please don't repeat that

>>6339 >I highly recommend looking up the terms being used in the discussion if you don't understand them. There's no shame. Like what? Give an example, with a post id. >or you know >any router Basically all home routers are provided by ISPs. I thought your unnamed magic meshnet project was supposed to be "free" and "easy". If people need to hunt around for specific hardware then it's not really free or easy is it? >>6340 >this is a joke btw, wi-fi isn't short for Wireless Firewire, please don't repeat that Hilarious. But WiFi doesn't even get you to the next block. How does it get you to France? Or Mexico?

>>6337 >>I know I don't but I'll keep asking you to spoonfeed me facts to continue the conversation >If this is all "common knowledge" and not just bullsoykaf you made up then feel free to link to a 3rd party source and I'll read that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.A.T.M.A.N. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cjdns https://docs.meshwith.me/ > >A. can be blocked at the ISP level, > As explained in multiple posts, China controls every packet that goes in and out of the country and they can't stop people using Tor/I2P/VPNs. How exactly is Comcast going to do a better job? This is just what I think is best worst-case scenario. Whether these measures are necessary is unlikely but good to keep in mind. And yeah they do stop most people from using them, and again the average person will not want to even bother with them. >>It doesn't go through an ISP. >How do I connect to someone in France then? Magic? Every router would communicate with each other, going all the way to France one way or the other. At the very least smaller communities could make use of it while it gets bigger. >>A. The router (or hardware connected to the router). >You mean the router everyone gets from their ISP? The one full of backdoors and you don't legally own? That's a good idea. Or does everyone need to buy new hardware? How do routers connect to other routers without going through ISP cables? Moat ISPs don't supply their own routers. American ISPs do, sure, but I would hope they're optional. You should already have your own router running OpenWRT. >>B. The user doesn't have to do anything, just connect to an open hotspot. >Why is everything so fuarrrking vague? If you mean WiFi just say fuarrrking Wifi. Uh, >A hotspot is a place that provides internet access to devices using Wi-Fi. A hotspot is created via a device known as an access point. So you connect to the hotspot. >>It runs inside a hotspot. >Access point* Whatever you want to go with, man. >I think I understand what the fuarrrk you are talking about now. How does the "hotspot" connect to other routers without going through ISP cables then? From my Wikipedia link: >B.A.T.M.A.N. does have elements of classical routing protocols: It detects other B.A.T.M.A.N. nodes and finds the best way (route) to these. It also keeps track of new nodes and informs its neighbors about their existence.

>>6341 >Basically all home routers are provided by ISPs. You can go to walmart and buy one for like $50. That's how I've gotten every router I've had. Also, most laptops and phones have wifi cards that can act as routers. >How does it get you to France? Or Mexico? It doesn't. That's an inherent limitation of mesh networks. You could possibly lease trunk cables for bulk long-distance connections but that is expensive af. There are various radio bands you could use, but that has a very slow transfer rate if you want good fidelity, and you'd have to use multiple bands to optimize for different distances. Your criticisms are *not new*. Instead of complaining about them you could try to help solve them?

>>6342 >BATMAN, cjdns These are layer2 and above protocols. You can also just do fuarrrking TCP/IP at that layer. I am asking you what is the physical medium do you use that does not use ISP cables? >This is just what I think is best worst-case scenario. It's a non existant scenario. If China can't do it then Comcast can't. >Every router would communicate with each other, going all the way to France· WiFi doesn't go 3000 miles. Try again. >You should already have your own router running OpenWRT. I thought we were talking about normal people. Normal people use whatever trash their ISP gives them. They don't go out and buy $50 routers. >Whatever you want to go with, man. It's in the 802.11 spec. "Hotspot" is what marketing glitterboys who don't know what the fuarrrk they are talking about say. This is supposed to be a /tech/ board. >From my Wikipedia link: Not the answer the the question I asked. What physical medium do you use to get from one router to another if they are not in WiFi range?

>>6343 >Your criticisms are *not new*. Instead of complaining about them you could try to help solve them? I'm not criticizing I'm trying to establish the facts because your friend (>>6303, >>6294, >>6288, >>6282) has been spilling soykaf all over the place.

>>6345 >Normal people use whatever trash their ISP gives them. like maybe it's just a California thing but my ISP has never given me a router. Anyway you don't need *everyone* to be running a hub AC. Just enough to ensure that there are some stable points in the network.

>>6345 >>BATMAN, cjdns >These are layer2 and above protocols. You can also just do fuarrrking TCP/IP at that layer. I am asking you what is the physical medium do you use that does not use ISP cables? You don't use one, read below. >>This is just what I think is best worst-case scenario. >It's a non existant scenario. If China can't do it then Comcast can't. Few things. First, this is future-proofing. No one can know what Comcast or China could do years from now. Secondly, China *can* block out most people from Tor and VPNs. And even for those they can't, what good is it if three-quarters of the population can't feel safe using the internet. You're only helping a minority of the population, Tor and the like will never catch on with the masses. >>Every router would communicate with each other, going all the way to France· >WiFi doesn't go 3000 miles. Try again. Obviously this will not help going from America to Europe, sure, but that's a problem still worth looking into. Scroll further down for more. >>You should already have your own router running OpenWRT. >I thought we were talking about normal people. Normal people use whatever trash their ISP gives them. They don't go out and buy $50 routers. Normal people wouldn't need to setup their router if someone near them has it setup already. And when it becomes common enough second-hand routers could be sold with it preinstalled. >>Whatever you want to go with, man. >It's in the 802.11 spec. "Hotspot" is what marketing glitterboys who don't know what the fuarrrk they are talking about say. This is supposed to be a /tech/ board. Jesus who cares what I call it if it's still right? Sorry, I meant "the 802.11 spec". That better? Just because it's a tech board doesn't mean it has to be autistic like /g/. >>From my Wikipedia link: >Not the answer the the question I asked. What physical medium do you use to get from one router to another if they are not in WiFi range? It doesn't need one if almsot every house has a compatible router. And, Wi-Fi repeaters and better antennas are a thing, you know? Don't tell me this can't work when there's lots of communities with this setup in production already. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freifunk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guifi.net https://nycmesh.net/ http://sdmesh.net/

>>6348 Also I'm kinda tired of this so this is my last reply. Hope it cleared up your confusions.

>>6337 >You mean the router everyone gets from their ISP? If you're not buying (or making) your own router, you're connecting to the Internet wrong, completely aside from meshnet stuff.

>>6348 >You don't use one, read below. cjdns and batman are layer 3 protocols. They still need a MAC and a physical layer. They don't just transport packets from router A to router B through fuarrrking magic. The networks you linked to are still using Ethernet over ISP cables for at least parts of their networks, so your promise of "no ISP cables" is bullsoykaf. >Obviously this will not help going from America to Europe, sure, Contrary to what you said before. >Normal people wouldn't need to setup their router if someone near them has it setup already. >t doesn't need one if almsot every house has a compatible router. And, Wi-Fi repeaters and better antennas are a thing, you know? Don't tell me this can't work when there's lots of communities with this setup in production already. This is a point where you've been massively misleading. The existing meshnets you've linked are not just people linking together their home routers. That wouldn't even get your across the street nevermind to another part of the city or country. They collectively invested thousands of dollars into their infrastructure and the ones covering more than a single city are using underground cables and VPNs across the real internet too. >Jesus who cares what I call it if it's still right? Sorry, I meant "the 802.11 spec". That better? Just because it's a tech board doesn't mean it has to be autistic like /g/. You are spilling a lot of soykaf and you don't even seem to understand basic networking theory. That's not cool.

>>6388 Look, I'm not any of the people you were arguing with... but to clarify a couple things: You certainly can link nodes wirelessly across the street with cjdns. Of course we have routers that powerful. Dunno about batman. But I don't think anyone's really suggesting that we link 500000 wrt54gs on little buoys across the Atlantic Ocean. The most realistic scenario I see is that we create longer-distance links using amateur radio soykaf, the details of which I'm not familiar with but it has been done. Maybe you could link up a city to rural communities this way. We'd still need copper or fiber to link two cities though. If I remember correctly, the guy behind cjdns suggested that connections between nodes would slow down after 8 hops or so. Ideally, people would link cities by making multiple UDP peerings between them over the internet, while the cities themselves have physical nets that could easily bring everything local within 8 hops. This would be the standard until some caring rich fuarrrk manages to buy a fiber line. >Contrary to what you said before I think you're not really talking to one person, you're arguing with several people. But how about we look at ways to build larger nets, rather than bitching back and forth. This thread will go nowhere otherwise.

>>6390 >You certainly can link nodes wirelessly across the street with cjdns. For fuarrrks sake. cjdns is a layer3 protocol. The physical layer is WiFi. Crappy home WiFi routers have very limited range. Some participants need to buy new hardware if you want a network to reach the next block. It's not "free". That's all. >Dunno about batman. Batman vs cjdns is like painting your car red vs blue. I'm talking about the wheels here, not what color the cab is. >The most realistic scenario I see is that we create longer-distance links using amateur radio soykaf, You can't legally encrypt amateur radio. >We'd still need copper or fiber to link two cities though. So you either need support of the ISPs who you are trying to subvert or the government who killed net neutrality to begin with? >Ideally, people would link cities by making multiple UDP peerings between them over the internet, But your super authoritarian ISPs have already somehow blocked Tor and I2P and all VPNs. Why won't they just block this too?

>>6390 >But I don't think anyone's really suggesting that we link 500000 wrt54gs on little buoys across the Atlantic Ocean That would be kind of awesome though. The kind of thing people would talk about forever, like John Henry. >>6391 >Crappy home WiFi routers have very limited range. Some participants need to buy new hardware if you want a network to reach the next block. It's not "free". That's all. So, what >>6336 said a third of the thread ago? >So you either need support of the ISPs who you are trying to subvert or the government who killed net neutrality to begin with? For out of city stuff, which would hopefully be a small portion of what each person accesses, unless one of us can buy our own massive fiber line (unlikely).

>>6391 >It's not free. Of course. But your soykaf router will at least get you across the street to the guy with better hardware. Unless your street's really fuarrrking wide. Beyond that, yes, we will need to buy better soykaf. And then, I don't know what kind of routers you are getting, but my old wrt54g had pretty good range. I could talk to that fuarrrker at a reasonable speed from at least 150ft away. That will get you from house to house, at the very least. >You can't legally encrypt amateur radio. Interesting, I didn't know that. >You need the support of the ISPs... >Your super authoritarian ISPs... We're talking about incremental steps to prepare for a bad future. Use the Internet to get to a point where we don't need it before it goes to complete soykaf. I don't think the effects of repealing net neutrality will happen overnight. Ideally, Congress will pass something to the effect of net neutrality, that's a little more sticky than an executive order or whatever; and then we might be alright. But as for stuff getting blocked, this is something I mentioned in this thread ages ago: >>6324 No one is denying that could happen. We're only saying that Tor/VPNs aren't a solution to OP's problem. I can't speak for everyone but I doubt most of us are creating a big plan to replace the internet in one go. We're looking for ways to build alternative physical networks, however big or small, out of stuff that's affordable with a decent income. Do you have an objection to that?

Meshnets are very limited, you will need lots of equipment to even connect 2 cities together and have connection everywhere in those 2 cities. Don't even think about laying fiber unless you have millions to throw away. Another limited factor is connection speed on long ranges. And in the end you will need some sort of team to manage all this hardware all over the place.

>>6394 >We're only saying that Tor/VPNs aren't a solution to OP's problem. Really? All your alternative meshnet crap still needs to enter the public internet at some point to be useful on any level. Nobody seriously gives a soykaf about only connecting to people who are literally across the street from them anyway. The point where your super awesome meshnet enters the public internet is where all your fud about net neutrality brings you back to square 1. >anonymity Have any of you guys even read the cjdns whitepaper? cjdns is not anonymous at all because every packet includes a list of all routers it has passed through so far by design. >Existing applications Just Work This is another thing that has been completely glossed over in this thread. It only just works as long as you have a route back to the public internet. cjdns works by abused private ipv6 addresses. There is no internal DNS or anything like that. In an isolated meshnet setting, your applications need to be cjdns aware, nothing just works transparently.

>>6398 >all your alternative meshnet crap still needs to enter the public internet [citation needed] >anonymity Of course cjdns doesn't let you be anonymous. No one claimed this in this thread as far as I can tell. >It only just works as long as you have a route back to the public internet This is false. cjdns peers don't need the internet. Peer X can talk to Peer Y directly with ethernet packets, without asking for an address with DHCP. In fact, CJDNS can auto-peer with other hardware peers it sees on the same physical net, and I've found it works really well. If you're talking about the lack of DNS, that without the internet you have to write down ipv6 addresses, yes, that is an issue with cjdns and decentralized networking in general. But is it useful? Can we do anything with that? Of course you fuarrrking can. Since you seem to be completely missing my point, here's a sort of picture of what I'd like to see: >Group of interested people in sizable city X buys hardware powerful enough to peer with each other wirelessly. >They set up their own filesharing, email, chat services, whatever else is feasible. All of this is accessible on an isolated cjdns network that has no tunnels to the internet. >They archive library docs, whitepapers, whatever else they think they need and make it available on their servers >The ISPs do something bad, the internet goes down, whatever else happens, they still have some semblance of a network to communicate with. If you want to keep soykafting on meshnets because they can't equal the internet, be my guest, but I'm done replying to you. The scenario I described above is definitely possible, whether it's logistically difficult or not.

>>6400 >all your alternative meshnet crap still needs to enter the public internet >[citation needed] First try quoting the whole sentence. >All your alternative meshnet crap still needs to enter the public internet at some point to be useful on any level. Now try arguing in good faith. >Of course cjdns doesn't let you be anonymous. No one claimed this in this thread as far as I can tell. >>6137 (OP) >Hey lain. What do you think about building a kind of new decentralized and anonymized net? >This is false....If you're talking about the lack of DNS, that without the internet you have to write down ipv6 addresses, yes, that is an issue with cjdns and decentralized networking in general. I'm talking about what I'm talking about. >It only just works as long as you have a route back to the public internet. >In an isolated meshnet setting, your applications need to be cjdns aware, nothing just works transparently. Is reading really so difficult for you? You read like 3 words and then jump in with your response. >If you want to keep soykafting on meshnets because they can't equal the internet, be my guest, Isn't that the whole premise of this dumb thread? >[ignorant FUD about net neutrality] >[ignorant FUD about Tor] >[build an alternative internet with buzzwords and magic]

any lainons with cjdns wanna peer?

>>6403 Sure "niles.xyz:57679": { "login": "lainchan", "password": "ylr79b5lkn5b3tybqqyru0mkr164lmc", "publicKey": "6k8xl0glpj83gq3c7nv55smmvsxu4750w4clmfn9yxvtfpvq91s0.k", "peerName": "niles.xyz" },

>>6404 "23.227.160.103:53758": { "login": "lainsand", "password": "r0qB8KDi86iVtrZsp3eaZ1kgfHc3PKk", "publicKey":"rvu88bgvf0u2uzf8q5cydqk8z1s5lyscwqb6f4yq1fvv5wlg7t70.k", "peerName":"zannix" },

>>6404 (BTW: hostnames aren't supported in cjdns v20, I had to dig your ip)

>>6407 whoops, sorry

>I know I don't but I'll keep asking you to spoonfeed me facts to continue the conversation >Please do some reading next time. >I highly recommend looking up the terms being used in the discussion if you don't understand them. There's no shame. >Hope it cleared up your confusions. wow it's no wonder people are soykafting on meshnets when the advocates are this uppity and have no clue what the fuarrrk they're talking about. This thread should probably have ended at >>6147 The biggest problem is social not technical. You will never convince any significant number of people to pour time and money into an alternative internet that is no where near as good as the real internet just in case some day the real internet disappears (except that it never will). The only people who use meshnets are geeks dicking around and 3rd world countries who genuinely have soykaf infrastructure and no alternatives.

>>6414 What did meshnets ever do to you?

>>6406 "185.22.174.241:62852": { "login": "lainet", "password":"k6rzvt2kxyx7x5w96w73jmjls6t921z", "publicKey":"frhbgfb96n411jywynxry3bz0lx68yl9kw01tfk6m4d2ckn61m80.k", "peerName":"AssPirate" },

>>6418 >>6406 >>6404 Is lainet over cjdns getting revived ? Because if so I now have a server I can peer with.

>>6436 lol I guess, though we'd be calling a small chunk of Hyperboria the lainet. Email me if you.want a private peering

>>6418 it's nice to see the lainet's local cat server again

>>6398 >Nobody seriously gives a soykaf about only connecting to people who are literally across the street from them anyway. normal people in my area generally use something like facebook messenger to communicate, and we all live within 5 miles of each other. are you saying that a neighborhood network wouldn't be useful in this case? >>6414 lots of people have phones on which an application could presumably do the work of setting up connections for them and offering text messaging, image sharing, and maybe other things like file sharing or something. you can't just give up because you think something might not work. >>6137 join the IRC at irc.jollo.org #/g/ternet , it's been active and some of you may be able to help.

>>6391 >You can't legally encrypt amateur radio. You can't legally encrypt HAM. (The software for doing so exits anyway. It's called Airchat, and it's FOSS.) You can encrypt MURS. MURS has its own issues though, among them a ban on repeating a signal. I think our best bet might be to form an NPO and get a license to operate on the Business Band. That way we can do basically whatever we want within our frequencies. We'd have to pay for licensing stuff, but we could get donations, and maybe require one-time hookup fees or something? If we make sure that the organization getting the licenses is an NPO, that will prevent the worst of the fuarrrkery that ISPs have. If we put something about maximum wages to executives and a ban on kickbacks in the charter, that should help with a lot of the rest. Anyway, here's a map of the cities I think we'd need. We could reach most of the NE, West coast, and Rust belt in three separate networks with a few well-placed transceivers (other than user nodes, I mean); then we'd have to connect them with repeaters that would almost have to be real towers ($$$). AM broadcasts in Mexico have no strength regulations, so if we could reach there, we can probably reach to Brazil, which has strong net neutrality laws.

>>6483 Sacramento wtf