[Freedombox-discuss] FreedomBox/Unhosted/PageKite for Access Innovation Prize 2012

[Markus Sabadello]

On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Michiel de Jong <michiel at unhosted.org>wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Nick M. Daly <nick.m.daly at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I haven't actually given a lot of thought to the box as a wireless host.
> > Most of my thinking has been using it as a host through the wild
> > intertubes.
>
> by wireless host do you mean client or access point? i think the
> freedombox can be connected to the existing router with a network
> cable, and then itself become a second access point.
>
> I see two options:
>
> - the freedombox emits a wifi signal
> or:
> - the freedombox sits inbetween the wifi router and the wall
>
> if additionally you can pull a network cable from your laptop to the
> freedombox, then that's nice to have for power users, but the wifi
> signal is what people use - network cables are very 2007 IMHO. if
> there is doubt about this then i'll do some street research, but i
> think only power users still use them for 'the last meter' so to
> speak.
>
> > There are a couple ways we could go here.
> >
> > 1. Replace your router with a FreedomBox.  Technically, always possible,
> >    though ISPs might get irritated.
>
> i don't care about ISP irritation, but chances are if you plug the DSL
> line into the freedombox, that simply nothing will happen. ISPs have
> all sorts of proprietary things going on there afaik. i think some
> even do remote firmware upgrades. i guess that's also what you meant
> with this point. so i don't think replacing the ISP-provided router is
> an option really.
>

Ya I agree..
Of course sometimes you hear the question, why do I need another box, why
can't I just use my existing router.
But it really seems impossible to work with all the ISP specific details.


> > 2. Co-mingle your FBX and router.  If people understand wifi, they'll
> >    also understand multiple signals.  As long as the FBX is an effective
> >    proxy, I'm not worried about it, technically.  Socially, though, it's
> >    a weird thing: "You mean I have to click that wifi button *every
> >    time* I want privacy?!"
>
> most laptops will i think pick whichever signal is the strongest, and
> even switch dynamically. so yes, they would have to disconfigure their
> old wifi signal and get it out of the way.
>
> >    Ideally, people would just move away from their router's networks
> >    altogether and push all their client devices' communications through
> >    the FBX.
>
> yeah, that's doable though, i think.
>
> if i understand correctly this explains that it's possible to make for
> instance a dreamplug become a wifi ap:
> http://www.spinifex.com.au/plugs/dphowtowifiap.html
>

Yes that's what I had always been assuming.
You connect your FreedomBox to your ISP router with a cable.
And then you connect to your FreedomBox' Wifi.

Then your "Internet" works just like before, except that you can now use
all the FreedomBox features.

dnsmasq intercepts the "freedombox" name which you just type into your
browser to access Plinth..

There has been an issue with AP mode working only with the proprietary
Marvell drivers, not with open source drivers.
Not sure what's the current status of this, if I remember correctly it
depends on which one of the network interfaces is in the box (mwifiex,
libertas, ..)

>
> > I'm a little leery of asking users to sign up for a service on a device
> > that's designed to let them host their own services.  It seems
> > internally inconsistent.  I don't think I have anything against offering
> > it as an option, but it shouldn't be the only one.
>
> i see your point, but what alternative do you see? if you want to
> offer any form of web presence, you need an IP address with a DNS
> domain pointing to it. the box needs to dial up to some sort of name
> service to announce where it is today. this can be either a DNS server
> or a (network of) reverse proxy(s) if you're on a dynamically assigned
> own IP. If you're behind NAT, then only a (network of) reverse
> proxy(s) can help you. The proposed DHT which resolves names to onion
> addresses is effectively a network of revers proxies too, and is not
> something we currently have working in production even on normal
> laptops afaik.
>
> > We should also
> > listen to Zooko's advice and allow the folks who want to attach a GB -
> > TB scale device to host their own storage provider and contribute to a
> > (self-encrypted) shared FBX storage grid.  I guess it's mostly a
> > question of which one gets done when.
>
> yes, that's the important question here i think. i'm all for it, in
> fact i think we should implement brokep's idea of buying .p2p as a top
> level domain, putting DHT-based DNS on it, and using that for
> everything. but my prediction is if it's not something we have working
> on our own normal PCs now, then it's not going to be easy to add it to
> the freedombox out of nowhere.
>
>
> > Apt seems to work pretty well for the rest of the distribution.
>
> yeah, that seems reasonable. if we already trust a reverse proxy
> somewhere in the cloud then there is no reason to not also trust an
> apt server (probably that same host can fulfill both functions).
>
>
> cheers!
> Michiel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20120707/cd43c599/attachment-0001.html>