[Freedombox-discuss] Which mesh system should be included in the Freedombox?
isaac_lists at freenetworkmovement.org
Sat Oct 12 18:06:15 UTC 2013
While there is tremendous potential in the idea of a decentralized material
network of freedomboxen, I don't think it makes sense to try to collapse the
functionality into a single device at this time. Certainly doable, but at this
point, a huge amount of work has gone into making mesh platforms run well on
openwrt, that it probably makes sense to simple bundle two devices together.
This is the idea of the FreedomNode. Isolate the network components into a
seperate device, provide v6 connectivity to the box, and voila.
We've been working with folks from guifi.net, altermundi, ninux, and some other
networks to build a firmware. There are many options. At the end of the day, I'm
not sure it makes sense to try to bundle the funcationality into fbx at this
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 11:55:32AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Petter Reinholdtsen (2013-10-12 09:36:15)
> > [Sandy Harris]
> >> As I see it, security has to be the first consideration for any Box
> >> component, including a mesh system. Given the stated project goals we
> >> should not even consider anything unless we have good reason to
> >> consider it secure.
> > Well, I believe that is putting the cart in front of the horse, given
> > the current amount of people involved. I believe we first need to get
> > something useful that can be located in the privacy of the users homes
> > to get that legal protection, and then we can continue improving that
> > to make it more and more "secure", which is a word that mean different
> > things to different people and thus hard to have as a fuzzy goal.
> > This mean to me that we pick solutions already in common use and
> > integrate it into the Freedombox, and depend on the rest of the free
> > software community to audit it (with our help, if someone in the
> > Freedombox want to spend time on it).
> I perfectly agree with *both* of you above - except your very first
> sentence, Petter:
> a) First consideration should be security
> b) First features added should be useful and in common use
> Since I am not experienced with using Debian for mesh networking, and
> apparently others on this list isn't either, I would look at _different_
> features than mesh networking for now - while we try generate (or locate
> existing) experiences and common practices of using mesh networking in
> Debian more broadly, which we can _then_ include in FreedomBox.
> > I've concluded I will focus on batman-adv for now, as it provide layer
> > 2 mesh networking (as in both IPv4 and IPv6 will work) and is used by
> > the Serval project that provide a peer-to-peer phone system that allow
> > phone calls and "SMS" messaging without central infrastucture. If the
> > freedombox provide mesh nodes compatible with the Serval project, we
> > get free software phone support for free. :)
> Great that you'll do more research into mesh networking. Sounds like a
> sensible choice, from the facts you provide.
> Looking forward to hear more from that research, so we can *then*
> consider if sensible to include in FreedomBox.
> - Jonas
> * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
> * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
> [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
> Freedombox-discuss mailing list
> Freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the Freedombox-discuss