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

[Anders Jackson]

2012/7/15 Michiel de Jong <michiel at unhosted.org>:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Anders Jackson
> <anders.jackson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> if we use IPv6 in FreedomBox infrastructure
>
> [...]
>
>> CAcert are as good infrastructure as StartSSL.
>
> i think our difference of perspective is you seem to concentrate more
> on how freedomboxes can communicate with each other (which i also hope
> will be over IPv6 and with cacert), whereas i am just investigating a
> different part of the same puzzle here: how to integrate with the
> internet and web that already exist.

No, I wouldn't say that.  I want to have a secure infrastructure to
build FreedomBox on, which IPv6 and IPSec will give. We don't need to
build stuff on IPv4 for that.  It will just be uggly hacks.

But to base the infrastructure on IPv6 and IPSec will not hinder any
use of IPv4 and current architectures. You still have to use dual
stack.  Because lots of infrastructure is based on IPv4 today.  But as
with the hardware.  Why build it on something old that are not good
enough.  When we should design for the what will come.

> At any rate, this sort of choices can totally be parameters to the
> build script, so we can have one FreedomBuilder that is capable of
> producing images for various such choices - which is i think the right
> approach for this.

I think it is a misstake to base on IPv4.  Yes, we need to have
support for IPv4, at least as a transport of IPv6 and to be able to
surf out of a NAT LAN.  But why do anything more that that?  Peer to
peer based on IPv4 behind NAT sounds so 1990:th...

> Cheers,
> Michiel

Same.
Anders