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

Michiel de Jong michiel at unhosted.org
Fri Jul 6 16:45:40 UTC 2012


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.

> 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

>
> 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



More information about the Freedombox-discuss mailing list