Can we network around traditional ISPs?

[lomiller]

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

No, it will work it may not be practical because people want their DNS names to resolve properly, but it will still work.

I mean, do you know who the authoritative name server for the .cz domain is.

Not off the top of my head, but it’s part of every full DNS server install. Remember your requests go to your DNS server not the root name server. Your DNS server will only forward requests to the root DNS server for the .cz domain if it doesn’t already have a record for the name you are looking for.

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.

The point of doing something like this would be for you to control who goolge.com or cnn.com are. Since most people don’t want google.com to take them anywhere else they won’t willingly use it but there is no technical or legal restriction. Some maleware does alter the way your PC does name resolution so they can point you to adware sites for your “google” searches, but this isn’t exactly desirable.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Found something maybe relevant to the discussion. http://www.opennicproject.org/home.php

Apparently it's a decentralized DNS for p2p. Not sure how it'd work with ISPs though?

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...irate-bay-cofounder-floats-p2p-dns-system.ars

 

[Garrison0fMars]

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.

What are you referring to in specific?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

What are you referring to in specific?

The decentralized internet mentioned in the OP. The internet isn't architecturally centralized. Backbones are a choice not a mandate.

 

[blutoski]

I'm trying to interpret the question. ISPs are not just packet routers: the relevant ones own or the last mile. Other ISPs lease access to these networks.

If I have a computer here in Vancouver, and I want to 'network' with my sister's computer in, say, Costa Rica... how will my signal even reach her without some sort of ISP involvement?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I'm trying to interpret the question. ISPs are not just packet routers: the relevant ones own or the last mile. Other ISPs lease access to these networks.

If I have a computer here in Vancouver, and I want to 'network' with my sister's computer in, say, Costa Rica... how will my signal even reach her without some sort of ISP involvement?

One of the proposals in the OP uses Ham radio frequencies. And one proposal intended for local community use is a network of wireless routers. And not all long distance lines are owned by ISPs per se.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

One of the proposals in the OP uses Ham radio frequencies. And one proposal intended for local community use is a network of wireless routers. And not all long distance lines are owned by ISPs per se.

Would Ham Radio work though? It seems like a very interesting project, but I'm wondering if it's technically feasible?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

The only problem I can think of with Ham radio would be that it could be easy to jam or unintentionally interfere with.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

The only problem I can think of with Ham radio would be that it could be easy to jam or unintentionally interfere with.

How so? (Don't know much about Ham myself)

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Someone broadcasting on the same frequency as you. It's pretty much honor code.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Someone broadcasting on the same frequency as you. It's pretty much honor code.

Anyway around that problem?

 

[blutoski]

Anyway around that problem?

Not unless human nature changes drastically.

Competitive interference rendered unlicensed AM radio utterly useless about nine seconds after somebody realized he could blast his recorded advertising overtop of everbody else's broadcasts. That's the reason spectrum became regulated.

 

[blutoski]

One of the proposals in the OP uses Ham radio frequencies. And one proposal intended for local community use is a network of wireless routers.

Sure, but that sounds like a WAN. The question is what would link WANs.

They look like fun projects, but I'm still not understanding what 'problem' these proposals are trying to solve (if any).

And not all long distance lines are owned by ISPs per se.

No, but they'll probably be some sort of carrier, which means the same regulations apply.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

The worries are censorship and possibly shutdown of the net. Some parts of the world actually have these problems.

No, but they'll probably be some sort of carrier, which means the same regulations apply.

How would anyone know that your private leased line is carrying public internet traffic mixed with your business data? I'd be pretty sure there are more than a few private lines out there where someone is inadvertently carrying public traffic without knowing it. Routers are fairly promiscuous unless you tell them not to be.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

They look like fun projects, but I'm still not understanding what 'problem' these proposals are trying to solve (if any).

Well, they're in response to censorship, both from the proposed "Internet kill switch", and probable future ISP censorship.

Here's the overview from Noisebridge

The amateur radio service has a good chunk of the IPv4 Internet address space (44.0.0.0/8), and it's not being used to its fullest potential. Meanwhile, the rest of the Internet is crowding into the remaining address space and will no longer have any left in the near future.

The address space isn't being used because of a chicken-and-egg problem: the necessary digital repeaters aren't available for users, and there are no users to justify building the repeater network.

Simultaneously, the United States is debating a bill to create an Internet kill switch, also known as the PCNAA bill. Echolink, IRLP, APRS gateways, and many other services assume the Internet's original distributed design won't allow a single entity to take out the entire network. If the PCNAA passes, this will no longer be true. For true redundancy, a non-critical network can and should be built by the amateur service to avoid this single point of failure.

The cost of the equipment has finally come down to the point where even a modestly funded amateur radio club can afford to set up a small regional network by themselves. Through advocacy and standards development, Noisebridge is building a packet radio network modelled on the original vision of the Hinternet.

 

[blutoski]

The worries are censorship and possibly shutdown of the net. Some parts of the world actually have these problems.

For sure, yes, but I wasn't seeing a real solution in their proposals. It sounds like they're proposing isolation from the internet.

How would anyone know that your private leased line is carrying public internet traffic mixed with your business data? I'd be pretty sure there are more than a few private lines out there where someone is inadvertently carrying public traffic without knowing it. Routers are fairly promiscuous unless you tell them not to be.

You'll have to explain what you mean by private leased line in this context. I would assume it's leased from a carrier. Regulation can be applied at their points. Which brings me to my original question about how isolated WANs would interlink over any real distance in a scaleable manner.

 

[blutoski]

Well, they're in response to censorship, both from the proposed "Internet kill switch", and probable future ISP censorship.

Here's the overview from Noisebridge

OK, so at least part of this passage sounds like they're hoping to build more independent redundancy in DNS.

It doesn't sound like that's intended to solve censorship. Are they proposing to resolve hypothetical "blacklisted" domains?

 

[Garrison0fMars]

For sure, yes, but I wasn't seeing a real solution in their proposals. It sounds like they're proposing isolation from the internet.

I think the purpose is to create a alternative Internet that would be resilient to censorship (decentralized, etc. the works). Anything that focuses on current WWW infrastructure probably wouldn't work from what I understand. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

OK, so at least part of this passage sounds like they're hoping to build more independent redundancy in DNS.

It doesn't sound like that's intended to solve censorship. Are they proposing to resolve hypothetical "blacklisted" domains?

Well, it's intended to stay operation even if there's a shutdown or a disaster. I asked about neutrality though, and they said the plan is to leave that up to the people running the repeaters. My guess is though, there'll be enough people who embrace some form of "neutrality" in transmission running the repeaters. Assuming this network actually works.

The focus certainly isn't targeting ISP discrimination/censorship, however it looks like if it does work, it could help solve that problem.

 

[blutoski]

I think the purpose is to create a alternative Internet that would be resilient to censorship (decentralized, etc. the works). Anything that focuses on current WWW infrastructure probably wouldn't work from what I understand. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

I sincerely do not have a clue, even after reading their material.

If they are proposing an 'alternative' to the Internet, they don't need to care about IPv4 allocations, so I don't understand why they're talking about them. They can just issue their own IPs. Shoot: they can use Token Ring instead of TCP/IP if they want.

I'm sure they know what they're doing, but I'm just not clear on what it is, exactly.