Can we network around traditional ISPs?

[Garrison0fMars]

Is there a way to create a decentralized "Internet" system that could be resilient towards any form of censorship (either from industry or governments?) I've ran into two projects making this claim, but I don't know enough about the technical details to know if what they're claiming is at all possible, so I'm wondering if anyone here knows enough to accurately judge their merits? The two projects are listed below

http://www.masternewmedia.org/the-alternative-p2p-wireless-internet-network-the-netsukuku-idea/

"The Alternative P2P Wireless Internet Network: The Netsukuku Idea"

Not sure what the current progress of it is, but a very interesting idea none the less.

Noisebridges Ham Radio powered Internet called "Hinternet"

http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2010/09/21/ham-radio-helping-to-build-a-fast-and-free-internet/

And the project page

https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/HInternet

Apparently the project's development is going rather steady according to one of the team members I talked to.

Also, does anyone have any ideas (or know of any projects current being worked on) that can help secure a non discriminatory Internet?

 

[Dancing David]

Well the key will be in the transmission, the way it is shaping up the big com carriers are likely to allow the wired net to remain neutral because they are drooling over wireless and want to sew it up.

 

[drkitten]

Is there a way to create a decentralized "Internet" system that could be resilient towards any form of censorship (either from industry or governments?)

Yes. The problem isn't with the Internet but with the DNS (Domain Name Service). If my computer can communicate with your computer, my computer can communicate through your computer to any other computer in the world.

The problem is finding that other computer to communicate with; i.e. coming up with a persistent and reliable way to find the computer that hosts the Randi forum, when the computers that it may be talking to at any given instant can change. DNS addresses that, but at the expense of a centralized set of nodes that can cut off access to the name randi.org at any instance.

Think of it this way: the internet is like a giant road network, and your computer is a car. As long as you're not trapped on a dead-end street, you can drive your car anywhere. It doesn't matter what roads the police block or the sewer company rips open.

_But_, you can't find any other car on the road easily, because it could also be anywhere.

That's the Internet.

DNS is like a huge GPS database that tells you at any instant where any car you want to know about is. "BMT 119A? Oh, that's at the corner of 19th St. and Washington Avenue." With that, you can figure out how to get there, even if the cops have blocked 18th St.

But if someone says "the database is no longer giving information about BMT 119A," at this point no one can find your car.

That's DNS.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Youngsters. This is what the internet was when it started in 1969. And the ability to do this has never been architected out. Plenty of orgnizations have been doing this for years.

@drkitten, In normal practice DNS isn't going to be an issue is it? The major DNS servers are already cooperating with plenty of other DNS servers that aren't part of "big communications". Granted some might get mad some day and cut you off, but will all of them, all over the world? (BTW I'm not even sure how many "big" DNS servers there are out there these days or who owns them).

 

[drkitten]

@drkitten, In normal practice DNS isn't going to be an issue is it? The major DNS servers are already cooperating with plenty of other DNS servers that aren't part of "big communications". Granted some might get mad some day and cut you off, but will all of them, all over the world? (BTW I'm not even sure how many "big" DNS servers there are out there these days or who owns them).

There are 13 "root zone servers" scattered world-wide (in practical terms, of course, they're not severs, but server farms). Although they're individually owned and operated, they're all supervised by the DNS Root Server System Advisory Committee, and the actual changes to the root zone are directed by the US Department of Commerce. I forget who the authoritative name server for (e.g.) the .com domain is, but again there's a single entity responsible for it, and I think that entity is subject to US law.

So, yes, it's quite possible for one person or organization to cut you off from the existing DNS. Especially if they're willing to call in a few solids.

And, yes, there are alternative DNS servers (AlterNIC is the most famous) but they've never been able to achieve traction.

 

[Wudang]

I like that analogy.

The next layer down is the numeric IP address which is assigned by your ISP. Usually this is assigned for a given period. Your ISP will have a range of IP addresses which it can assign. DSN maps names to addresses e.g. randi.org to address 67.215.65.132.
Now if you can find an ISP or a server with a fixed IP address (one that does not change) then you can you hook up via that by the equivalent of saying "This is wudang. Today I'm driving BMT 1920X and I'm on main street". That ISP or server could then run its own DNS server with its own lists of names outside the official DNS system. Something kind of similar is done by some types of botnet^WP
If you would like to learn more aboput DNS and such IBM provides an excellent free book but it assumes some previous knowledge:
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/gg243376.html?Open

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

There are 13 "root zone servers" scattered world-wide (in practical terms, of course, they're not severs, but server farms).

If the root zone servers were shutdown wouldn't the ISPs (and other organizations) have an immediate response of just declaring their own DNS servers to be the root servers? Would make it difficult for new domains and domain changes, but wouldn't take down the internet.

 

[johnHorn]

See the problem is that all this is pretty much run by the big guys and it does seam we can't trust them but on the good side they're control is to a limtied extent limited. or at-least more limited than that of a dictator or system admin. not very though...

 

[drkitten]

If the root zone servers were shutdown wouldn't the ISPs (and other organizations) have an immediate response of just declaring their own DNS servers to be the root servers? Would make it difficult for new domains and domain changes, but wouldn't take down the internet.

No, because the ISPs and other organizations typically don't have the necessary local information to be the root servers, and the information they do have is likely to be out of date and mutually contradictory.

The major ISPs would still be likely to communicate with each other and the major sites would probably be correct. But we'd be very likely to lose the fringes.

 

[Wudang]

See the problem is that all this is pretty much run by the big guys and it does seam we can't trust them but on the good side they're control is to a limtied extent limited. or at-least more limited than that of a dictator or system admin. not very though...

Then set up your own ISP linky. We need some big guys in the mix to resolve disputes and few people deny that ICANN could do with a bit more transparency but what actually are you afraid of? A little digging and you can find ways to keep yourself very private on the internet.

 

[drkitten]

Then set up your own ISP linky.

It's not quite that easy. Even if you're setting up your own ISP,.... to whom are you going to connect? You're still going to need to buy a connection to the outside world from someone, and if your partner at the other end of the link doesn't like you, you're in trouble....

 

[Soapy Sam]

Some sort of cell based system, analogous to cellphone networks? Cells connect to bigger aggregates of cells? A neural model? Like the way local phone companies in the States were in Bell's day, before the Bell Company provided the long distance links?

Just speculating.

 

[Wudang]

It's not quite that easy. Even if you're setting up your own ISP,.... to whom are you going to connect? You're still going to need to buy a connection to the outside world from someone, and if your partner at the other end of the link doesn't like you, you're in trouble....

Yes of course. My point was that you can recover some of the autonomy the poster seemed concerned about with a bit of work but, for example, you'd need some serious backing to even consider LLU.

 

[lomiller]

Yes. The problem isn't with the Internet but with the DNS (Domain Name Service). If my computer can communicate with your computer, my computer can communicate through your computer to any other computer in the world.

The problem is finding that other computer to communicate with; i.e. coming up with a persistent and reliable way to find the computer that hosts the Randi forum, when the computers that it may be talking to at any given instant can change. DNS addresses that, but at the expense of a centralized set of nodes that can cut off access to the name randi.org at any instance.

Think of it this way: the internet is like a giant road network, and your computer is a car. As long as you're not trapped on a dead-end street, you can drive your car anywhere. It doesn't matter what roads the police block or the sewer company rips open.

_But_, you can't find any other car on the road easily, because it could also be anywhere.

That's the Internet.

DNS is like a huge GPS database that tells you at any instant where any car you want to know about is. "BMT 119A? Oh, that's at the corner of 19th St. and Washington Avenue." With that, you can figure out how to get there, even if the cops have blocked 18th St.

But if someone says "the database is no longer giving information about BMT 119A," at this point no one can find your car.

That's DNS.

In theory you could create your own .com root name server, and anyone who has a browser that points at it would get your .com domain rather than the “real” .com domain. This isn’t desirable for obvious reasons which is why there is agreement on what the root name servers are.

Edit, this assumes you are not sending your first request to your ISP's DNS of course

 

[Wudang]

The root name servers are basically just settings in your browser.

No. At the moment none of my PCs use the root DSN servers though I have in the past. What the root servers do is arbitrate and collate between the various registries. The dns servers I use will talk to the root servers.

eta: I suspect you "mispoke yourself"?

 

[lomiller]

No. At the moment none of my PCs use the root DSN servers though I have in the past. What the root servers do is arbitrate and collate between the various registries. The dns servers I use will talk to the root servers.

eta: I suspect you "mispoke yourself"?

yes already edited it out before you finished posting. The point I was trying to make is that you do not need not depend on your ISP’s DNS and you can make the root name server anything you want.

 

[drkitten]

Some sort of cell based system, analogous to cellphone networks? Cells connect to bigger aggregates of cells? A neural model? Like the way local phone companies in the States were in Bell's day, before the Bell Company provided the long distance links?

Just speculating.

That's basically what the sites listed in the OP are trying to do.

Totally unworkable, of course. There's too much data to try to move it across such a distributed system, which is why the backbone evolved in the first place. The "big boys" can afford to invest in big pipes that have the capacity to handle the data and can send it long distances. My little laptop doesn't have the stones to let my neighbor download Netflix videos through it. So he'll have to go with someone who can afford to buy better infrastructure, and we're back to someone in the business of "providing Internet service."

 

[drkitten]

yes already edited it out before you finished posting. The point I was trying to make is that you do not need not depend on your ISP’s DNS and you can make the root name server anything you want.

Well, I can.... but unless the root name server has the actual knowledge, it's not going to work.

I mean, do you know who the authoritative name server for the .cz domain is? If not (and I'm fairly confident you don't), then pointing my browser at you will just result in my not being able to find anything.dot.cz

And the real problem comes in at the second level; the server that keeps track of whatever.com and whothehell.net. Your browser may know Google and CNN, but I'll bet it doesn't know tinasflowersmadisonwi.com.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

My little laptop doesn't have the stones to let my neighbor download Netflix videos through it. So he'll have to go with someone who can afford to buy better infrastructure, and we're back to someone in the business of "providing Internet service."

What about your wireless router though? Some of the new ones are as fast as the pipe to a persons house might be. And very few people use them around the clock. Pretty soon there might be enough spare capacity sitting around to make the this idea practical on a significant scale.

 

[BenBurch]

If you really want an end-run around the net, you set up a store-and-forward phone-based network like FidoNet or uucp-net. Then to send a message, you need to know the entire chain of nodes between your node and your destination, and you send your message into a storage buffer. At some time either your machine calls the next node in the chain, or that node calls you with traffic and you send your message at that time. And that node exchanges with the next, ad-infinitem. In the early days of usenet it could take several days to get a message from the USA to Europe.

Addresses looked something like this;

moscvax!ihnp4!isis!benburch

And could get VERY long!