[Freedombox-discuss] Freedombox-discuss Digest, Vol 8, Issue 42

Mon Mar 7 15:01:10 UTC 2011

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned here yet -
http://www.openmeshproject.org

-- 
    { Jason }
| + re-configure.org
| + true-cost.re-configure.org
| + smart-city.re-configure.org
| + webtxtmsg.com
| + txtnyc.net
| + phibetaiota.net
| + @zconfigure


On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 6:58 AM,
<freedombox-discuss-request at lists.alioth.debian.org> wrote:
> Send Freedombox-discuss mailing list submissions to
>        freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        freedombox-discuss-request at lists.alioth.debian.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        freedombox-discuss-owner at lists.alioth.debian.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Freedombox-discuss digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: towards a business plan (Yannick)
>   2. Re: p2psip (Yannick)
>   3. Re: p2psip (Marc Petit-Huguenin)
>   4. Report third hackfest (Michiel de Jong)
>   5. Re: towards a business plan (Bjarni R?nar Einarsson)
>   6. Re: p2psip (Jonas Smedegaard)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 05:27:35 +0100
> From: Yannick <sevmek at free.fr>
> Subject: Re: [Freedombox-discuss] towards a business plan
> To: freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
> Message-ID: <1299472055.4877.168.camel at athena.fbx.proxad.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Le lundi 07 mars 2011 ? 09:47 +1030, Paul Gardner-Stephen a ?crit :
>> Hello Yannick,
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Yannick <sevmek at free.fr> wrote:
>> > Le dimanche 06 mars 2011 ? 12:46 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard a ?crit :
>> >> On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 07:15:18PM -0800, Thomas Lord wrote:
>> >> >Step 1:
>> >> >
>> >> >Let's pick 5 apps.   I suggest email mailbox hosting, chat,
>> >> >instant messaging, blogging and FB-ish "walls".
>> >>
>> >> What is the difference between "chat" and "instant messaging"?
>> >>
>> >> If first one is realtime voice chat, I suggest calling it telephony to
>> >> avoid misunderstanding.
>> >>
>> >> And I suggest to aim even lower that for first iterations.  Not because
>> >> any of them are weak as selling points, but because not all of them
>> >> really exist yet (or are prepackaged in Debian, if that matters yo you).
>> >
>> > Nowadays, there is no more such difference between Instant Messaging,
>> > Voice/video Chat and Telephony. It all converges.
>>
>> Actually, there is a big difference from a technical perspective.
>> IM can handle latency, jitter and other network issues much better
>> than voice can, unless you are happy with >1sec voice latency to
>> buffer your way through these problems.
>
> As far as I know, there is no real Quality of Service on the internet
> yet, which can be regarded as good as it gives the network a property of
> neutrality. Situation is of course different in a local network with an
> administrator, witch is not the case with the freedombox.
>
> Thus it doesn't matter what you try to put in the network, text message
> or voice communication, the latency will be the same. Of course,
> implementors use some "tricks" like using UDP...
>
>>
>> > One issue is there is 2 free (as in speech) protocols: XMPP and SIP.
>> >
>> > Personnaly, I would prefer SIP because it has a focus on telephony
>> > features, stong backup by hardware vendors for real telephony and allow
>> > to call "real" phones too. The downside is the complexity of the
>> > specification and interoperability issues.
>>
>> Yes, SIP is very good in many ways, but at ServalProject.org at least,
>> we are looking to create a simple alternative protocol (open of
>> course) which will tolerate latency and excessive packet loss much
>> better than SIP does, and will be substantially more bandwidth
>> efficient when calls are not in progress.  We will still support SIP,
>> and have a SIP to our own protocol gateway, but we will use our own
>> protocol where both ends support it to improve performance.
>>
>> It should also be noted that SIP is very chatty when no call is in
>> progress, which can easily swamp a mesh network.
>>
>
> Seems nice... Where is your code source? What is the licence? Will you
> propose a standardisation as an RFC to the IETF?
>
>> > Make no mistake, SIP do support Instant Messaging too:
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIMPLE
>> >
>> > Another issue is to get a real world wide adress book. The best I know
>> > is ENUM, still with no real backup by governements yet, but there is a
>> > community around it ; see
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_number_mapping
>> > If the project is willing to replace DNS, I think it should include ENUM
>> > as part of it.
>>
>> The trouble with ENUM is that it needs government cooperation to work.
>> This is why ServalProject.org made Serval DNA (open of course), which
>> lets people claim their own number, and creates a distributed home
>> location register so that you can make calls using real numbers, even
>> if partitioned from the rest of the internet.  I am happy to provide
>> more information on this if people are interested.
>
> This is what some communities do with ENUM too yet, like e.g.:
> http://www.e164.org/
> which the ekiga softphone (I'm part of the team) does use cf.
> http://wiki.ekiga.org/index.php/Enum
>
> Thus we do have several technologies able to map phone numbers and IP.
> One issue here is how to securely attach my phone number to my IP, what
> does prevent a bad guy to attach my phone number to his IP, stealing it?
> This is why the governments should be in the loop.
>
> I'm aware of a workaround for french people, as the french government
> actually use a certificate for online payment, thus I'm able to prove
> using cryptographic techniques I'm really who I am with a backup by my
> government. But it was not meant that way and is far from being user
> friendly at this point.
>
>>
>> > Last but not least issue is the "NAT" issue. But this one is something
>> > that would include most of the services provided by the freedombox: each
>> > freedombox will need a public adress to allow real peer to peer
>> > connection. I would recommend using IPv6 from the start and drop any
>> > form of NAT. This would ease a structure where any freedombox could be a
>> > real server and client.
>>
>> This is fine for devices with support for IPv6, which clearly the
>> freedombox will be.
>> However, if you want compatibility with as many devices as possible,
>> then you at least need a plan for NAT/IPv4.
>> ServalProject.org's approach here is using nodes as gateways and ECC
>> public keys as actual identities.  We can route this as an overlay
>> over IPv4 if necessary, and you could use a fairly sensible ECC to
>> IPv6 mapping.
>
> If I get this right, some nodes with public IP will relay the voice
> stream. Which is the classical approach if you cannot get peer to peer
> connection because of NAT. e.g. see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traversal_Using_Relay_NAT
>
> My question here is who will provide this service? Will it be based on
> your own nodes with your own bandwidth, or is it based on some DHT
> architecture ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_hash_table ) in
> witch everybody can be eligible to be a relay ?
>
> Beside, for privacy reason, streams should be encrypted with stuff like
> ZRTP.
>
>>
>> > On the topic of SIP, having a real peer to peer achitecture is the
>> > subject of this effort for a standard: http://www.p2psip.org/
>>
>> Again, I think this is good to support, but I think that it is
>> possible to implement some cleaner, simpler protocols to do these
>> tasks better, and my team and I are actively doing so, and are happy
>> to share that work, and take input from this community.
>>
>
> Sure, you're welcome!
>
> Regards,
> Yannick
>
>> Paul.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 05:34:02 +0100
> From: Yannick <sevmek at free.fr>
> Subject: Re: [Freedombox-discuss] p2psip
> To: freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
> Message-ID: <1299472442.4877.174.camel at athena.fbx.proxad.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Le dimanche 06 mars 2011 ? 15:25 -0800, Marc Petit-Huguenin a ?crit :
>> Marc Petit-Huguenin
>
> The day I talked about p2psip, one of those guy showed up ;)
>
> A warm welcome Marc!
>
> Can you tell us what are the progresses of the reload (p2psip main
> draft) implementation?
> Do we have something usable we can test?
>
> Best regards,
> Yannick
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 21:11:48 -0800
> From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc at petit-huguenin.org>
> Subject: Re: [Freedombox-discuss] p2psip
> To: Yannick <sevmek at free.fr>
> Cc: freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
> Message-ID: <4D746914.4050307 at petit-huguenin.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 03/06/2011 08:34 PM, Yannick wrote:
>> Le dimanche 06 mars 2011 ? 15:25 -0800, Marc Petit-Huguenin a ?crit :
>>> Marc Petit-Huguenin
>>
>> The day I talked about p2psip, one of those guy showed up ;)
>
> Eh, I registered on the mailing-list just as someone was bashing SIP (not that
> it does not deserve it, but that was funny, as I did not expect it to be one of
> the first discussion to read on this m.-l.).
>
>>
>> A warm welcome Marc!
>
> Thanks.
>
>>
>> Can you tell us what are the progresses of the reload (p2psip main
>> draft) implementation?
>
> I probably will have the first version ready in time for Prague - but so far I
> really have an hard time finding people willing to do an interop with me.  Even
> after a promise of free beer!
>
>> Do we have something usable we can test?
>
> I would say not before 2 or 3 months, but we are getting there.
>
> - --
> Marc Petit-Huguenin
> Personal email: marc at petit-huguenin.org
> Professional email: petithug at acm.org
> Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk10aRIACgkQ9RoMZyVa61cCzQCcD1a3uZMpEbcAoMsMF8vXFggv
> yK4AniFeekrnryjNRra7Kd1QzSN/XJKN
> =WvY4
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 11:35:53 +0100
> From: Michiel de Jong <michiel at unhosted.org>
> Subject: [Freedombox-discuss] Report third hackfest
> To: freedombox list <Freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <AANLkTi=RE8CnKu48vtKO0eBGLJ=jQi4fzpQ5dx_0uC_c at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi!
>
> Afaik there were two things going on yesterday at the hackfest:
>
> - The "Distributed Social Networks" comic has been translated into German,
> and put into git with the text balloons in svg, so that they're easy to
> translate into more languages.
> - We tested installing the WebID debian package, which lead to generation of
> partial install instruction - up to the point where we couldn't get it to
> work, and sent a request for help to the foaf mailinglist.
> - People talked about plug servers, about email vs xmpp, and about the
> current state of the freedombox project in general.
>
>
> Cheers!
> Michiel.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20110307/cd076203/attachment-0001.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 11:09:47 +0000
> From: Bjarni R?nar Einarsson <bre at pagekite.net>
> Subject: Re: [Freedombox-discuss] towards a business plan
> To: Yannick <sevmek at free.fr>
> Cc: freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
> Message-ID:
>        <AANLkTim5QBo12TcR+zaDMvRUN+98ooQ6e5oSCRmc_etP at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Yannick <sevmek at free.fr> wrote:
>
>>
>> * blogging
>> In the same way if we plan to put some service for blogging, like a web
>> server e.g. Nginx+php/mysql support, with a nice tool to start your own
>> blog e.g. wordpress, what if your ISP provider puts you behind a NAT for
>> the port 80? How will people be able to read your blog? One solution is
>> mesh wifi, i.e. everybody being a provider. It will probably need some
>> engineering.
>>
>
> This is exactly the problem I am working on, with PageKite (
> https://pagekite.net/ ). We hope to have official Debian packages ready
> within the next couple of months.
>
> You touched on this and also e-mail, both of which are areas where
> FreedomBoxes can be assumed to need some "help" from the cloud if they are
> to provide self-hosted services which are backwards compatible and
> interoperable with today's Internet.
>
> PageKite is really, really easy to use to make a self-hosted website visible
> to the outside world (circumventing NAT and all that other nasty stuff), but
> it is so because there is a business (my company) behind it providing
> in-the-cloud infrastructure. I believe that for the FreedomBox to scale to
> thousands or millions of end users, such support businesses will need to
> exist, and at some point we'll want to have a discussion about what they
> should look like: how must companies behave in order to be "Freedom and
> FreedomBox compatible"? :-)
>
> Of course, some will just reject commercial involvement entirely... but not
> all, and I think some of those 1000s of small businesses will be providing
> on-line support services to FreedomBoxes, and we don't want them to become
> freedom inhibitors either.
>
> --
> Bjarni R. Einarsson
> The Beanstalks Project ehf.
>
> Making personal web-pages fly: http://pagekite.net/
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20110307/1181c6a8/attachment-0001.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 12:58:28 +0100
> From: Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk>
> Subject: Re: [Freedombox-discuss] p2psip
> To: freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
> Message-ID: <20110307115828.GK16890 at jones.dk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
>
> On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 09:11:48PM -0800, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
>>On 03/06/2011 08:34 PM, Yannick wrote:
>>> Le dimanche 06 mars 2011 ? 15:25 -0800, Marc Petit-Huguenin a ?crit :
>>>> Marc Petit-Huguenin
>>>
>>> The day I talked about p2psip, one of those guy showed up ;)
>>
>>Eh, I registered on the mailing-list just as someone was bashing SIP
>>(not that it does not deserve it, but that was funny, as I did not
>>expect it to be one of the first discussion to read on this m.-l.).
>
> Bashing?  That sounds like me :-P
>
> Welcome aboard, Marc!
>
>
>  - Jonas
>
> --
>  * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
>  * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
>
>  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: not available
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 836 bytes
> Desc: Digital signature
> URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20110307/2c5092fa/attachment.pgp>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Freedombox-discuss mailing list
> Freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
>
>
> End of Freedombox-discuss Digest, Vol 8, Issue 42
> *************************************************