[Freedombox-discuss] assigned numbers without ICANN

[Thomas Lord]

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