[Freedombox-discuss] assigned numbers without ICANN
Thomas Lord
lord at emf.net
Fri Apr 29 16:58:54 UTC 2011
Jonas, thanks for this:
> I strongly recommend to work on this independently from the FreedomBox
> project.
> I don't mean "go away - you are disturbing this list" but rather that no
> technology should be unique to FreedomBoxes - so I suggest to either
> remove the term "Freedomboxes" from your paper or at least very clearly
> state it as _example_ use of the proposed protocol, and then goout aim
> more widely with it - e.g. make it a RFC.
I can write a paper without "FreedomBox" but this paper
("note", really, at best :-) is for
a FreedomBox audience so I don't mind framing it that way.
I generally agree that the overlay network I'm spelling out
is also a "stand alone" set of protocols and implementations.
That's a correct and important point that you raise.
I'm glad you said that instead of me having to later
explain it.
I'm glad you don't mean "go away - you are disturbing the list"
because I want to eventually persuade people that a handful
of protocols, like this overlay network, ought to constitute
the definition of "user space" for FreedomBox "apps". That is,
if you want to write a new server-side program to share with
freedombox users, one very portable way to do it is to have
it not use any native operating system features directly -- but
rather be written for a virtual operating system with primitives
for addressing the overlay network and a few basic (high level,
abstract) services.
Meanwhile, I put the assigned names and numbers thing
out there to:
a) raise the notion of engineering for the socio-economic
situation of "admins" and "users"
b) have a reference point so I can talk about
"routing numbers" and "overlay hostnames" in the
future and just cite rather than re-explain.
c) see what useful feedback I might get at this point.
I think I'm probably going to be able to finish a quick note
about how routing works today.
Thanks,
-t
On Fri, 2011-04-29 at 10:18 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 11-04-28 at 07:08pm, Thomas Lord wrote:
> > Allocating Assigned Routing Numbers
> > in a Distributed and Decentralized Way
> >
> >
> > NEED FOR AN OVERLAY NETWORK
> >
> > Programs for Freedomboxes can not assume that each box has a
> > stable IP address. Boxes are most often likely to lack both a
> > fixed IP and a DNS hostname. Many boxes are also likely to be
> > connected behind highly restrictive firewalls.
> >
> > Nevertheless, using some kind of "overlay network", we wish to
> > establish point-to-point communication between freedomboxes.
>
> I strongly recommend to work on this independently from the FreedomBox
> project.
>
> I don't mean "go away - you are disturbing this list" but rather that no
> technology should be unique to FreedomBoxes - so I suggest to either
> remove the term "Freedomboxes" from your paper or at least very clearly
> state it as _example_ use of the proposed protocol, and then goout aim
> more widely with it - e.g. make it a RFC.
>
> Good luck with the project!
>
>
> - Jonas
>
> _______________________________________________
> Freedombox-discuss mailing list
> Freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
More information about the Freedombox-discuss
mailing list