[Freedombox-discuss] In-the-cloud infrastructure and business involvement (was: distributed DNS)

[Yannick]

Le jeudi 17 mars 2011 à 13:01 +0000, Bjarni Rúnar Einarsson a écrit :
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Yannick <sevmek at free.fr> wrote:
>         The freedombox project is based on softwares in debian, which
>         all do
>         have built in standard protocols today in use ; except if you
>         purposely
>         disable them. e.g. by simply shipping a web browser, it will
>         allow
>         people using the "cloud", as you call it, for any purposes
>         they want.
>         
>         There should be no fear about compatibility here. The issue
>         you're
>         raising up here is quite different: as in some case the
>         internet core
>         principle "end to end communication" is broken, you are
>         talking about
>         some servers in the middle to provide communication services.
>         Which I
>         will name as: moving bits as a business model.
> 
> Yes, this is all correct.  The Internet's end-to-end principle IS
> broken, and if we want Freedom Boxes to be able to communicate, we
> have to work around that limitation.  I propose that businesses may
> have a role to play by helping push bits at various layers of the
> stack.
> 

Let's clarify one thing: end to end principle is broken by ISP, it is
not broken by design. In some case they do not give you a real internet
address, i.e. a world wide IP address (even better a fixed one ; I do
have one with my ISP), in some other case they filter content, e.g.
forbidding some protocols. It is because they do act as an administrator
of the network by taking measure against what you can do with the
network, against your freedom, not as a service provider.

Let's be even more clear: an IP address does not cost anything; you just
ask to the regulation authority, and if found valid for technical reason
they give it to you for free. The issue with current implementation
(i.e. IPv4) is there is not enough address for all because the field
defining the address is too short (something easily fixed in IPv6, the
next iteration of the base internet protocol).

Even more: filtering protocols for security reasons or legal issues?
They fail: there is much spam and they do not prevent copyrighted files
sharing.

But most ISP hand in hand with governments (like the french one or the
UK one) and content providers (like the entertainment industry) wants
more control of what you do with the network. Mainly for business
reasons because the more they have power, the more they can restrict
your choice to just what they want you to consume. This is an artificial
creation of needs, and also a violation of your right to self educate
using the culture, and a violation of your privacy as they log things
and keeps the logs longer and longer.

> Unfortunately, after this you completely lost me and I did not
> understand your point, until...
> 
>  
> 
>         We do have the design for end to end communication and it is a
>         standard.
>         IPv6 provide enough addresses to connect every piece of rock
>         on earth.
> ... 
> 
>         Thus all the issues you raised here are taking care by the
>         internet evolution,
>         and only bad business model like moving bits prevent it.
> 
> I must admit I did not understand your point here.  You seem to argue
> that because *some* ISPs are trying to hurt network neutrality, that
> the bit pushing business models are somehow *all* evil?
> 

It is not that moving bits is evil, it is that a business model based
almost exclusively on it wont pay much, and will pay even less in the
future. One of the main idea behind the freedombox is mesh wifi, which
mean we do have yet the technology to let the people moving bits by
itself at a cost far much cheaper than the 30 euros I do pay each month
to my ISP in france.

What is really evil is that *major* ISP try to prevent this from
happening, just to continue funding their business.

A consequence of what they are doing is the happening of "work around",
like skype is. The skype model is almost exclusively based on the work
around of NATs: people use it because it just work with the current
restrictions imposed by administrators of the network (like some ISP)
which claims they offer you "internet access" while they just gives you
access in a "read only" model, i.e. they prevent your system to be a
server.

> What about the IPv6 providers?  They are pushing bits.  IPv6 tunneling
> providers was one of the businesses I proposed might be helpful to the
> FreedomBox, in order to speed up the evolution you mention above.
> 
> I honestly can't tell whether you agree or disagree with that
> idea. :-)
> 

I do not see the reason for IPv6 tunneling using a centralized service,
when the freedombox itself can do it. As I told you I do have an IPv4
fixed address, I can do this tunneling too. I do not see anything
preventing me to use IPv6 in my local network and be connected to the
actual internet based on IPv4.

It is all well defined here:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2893.txt (for the router level, year 2000)
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4038.txt (for the software level, year 2005)

Linux is already dual stack IPv4/IPv6. Most network softwares in Debian
are probably ready too.

> 
> (Not that giving every single FreedomBox an IPv6 will actually solve
> anything in the near term - they will remain unreachable and invisible
> for the vast majority of the Internet. More is needed.)

As based on Debian, freedomboxes should be dual stack by default:
IPv6/IPv4. My point is the freedombox should use IPv6 as much as it can
to fix the issue, not implementing a whole bunch of work around the
limitations imposed by ISP.

Best regards,
Yannick