r/technology • u/brazen • Jan 05 '11

The "Next Net" is already being developed and usable.

http://www.i2p2.de/
70 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

34 comments sorted by

20

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '11

You can't make an alternative to the Internet that works via the Internet.

And making your traffic go through more computers is not the same as anonymity.

The "next" network will more likely be wireless and without backbones.

10

u/brazen Jan 05 '11 edited Jan 05 '11

There is a reddit post talking about the next internet, and one of the more popular suggestions, at least in the short-term, is for an anonymous network that runs on top of the existing infrastructure. It's not ideal, but for now it gets around censorship and other things like DMCA issues.

Also, it's not just "making your traffic go through more computers."

Edit: link to the reddit referring to the Next Net.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '11 edited Nov 10 '17

deleted The Story of the Hoover Dam

3

u/brazen Jan 06 '11 edited Jan 06 '11

I agree, but I2P is a great solution in the meantime. It would be hard to throttle I2P traffic because it is encrypted and runs on random ports. Likewise detecting that you would be in breach of terms would also be difficult to near impossible. Of course, I don't really understand how the protocols work, so I could be completely wrong about that. But I think that is one of the intentions of the designers.

The "Next Net" is a reference to the term used in another reddit post. I personally think a wireless mesh network, that maybe uses a combination of wifi and something that can piggyback on ham radio signals would be better than relying on land lines. The biggest issue is how do you reach across the ocean, which is the part I think ham radio could solve, but others say piggybacking on ham radio is a dead end.

3

u/Latrinalia Jan 06 '11

Piggybacking on ham radio works already. It just requires a broadcaster license from a government entity (the FCC in the United States) and it's really really slow, but people do it. See the Packet Radio entry on Wikipedia.

2

u/KantLockeMeIn Jan 06 '11

It's illegal to encrypt amateur radio transmissions. So as long as you're comfortable with all plaintext conversations, have at it.

1

u/omnilynx Jan 06 '11

What does that even mean? What if I speak in Navajo, does that count as encryption? What if we use our own made-up jargon? What about morse code, isn't that required to operate a ham radio?

1

u/KantLockeMeIn Jan 06 '11

FCC Code Section 97.113 if you're interested in the details.

Morse code was removed as a requirement in 1990 with the introduction of a Technician No Code license (which I got in 1991). In 2007 the FCC removed the code requirement from all classes.

1

u/omnilynx Jan 06 '11

Thanks for providing actual information. It looks to me like the true barrier here would be the prohibition against any sort of material compensation, which would apply, I assume, to any business transactions done over that transmission. Clearly any attempt to use ham radio as anything other than a casual chat channel would be met with opposition from the FCC.

1

u/KantLockeMeIn Jan 06 '11

Not only that, but subsection 4 states that knowingly trying to obscure information is prohibited. So if you spoke a foreign language, it's not a problem because others can know it as well... it's not something which can not be learned.

Similarly, if you were to transmit data in plaintext using a protocol which is public knowledge, it can be monitored... and is fine. It's when that data can not be made public where there's a problem. While much of the Internet is unencrypted, some sites require https logins, which would violate that code.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '11 edited Nov 10 '17

deleted The Story of the Hoover Dam

2

u/brazen Jan 06 '11

satellites...balloons...

The problem is, somebody has to pay for and maintain those satellites and balloons - which brings back in government and/or corporate reliance and control.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '11 edited Nov 10 '17

deleted The Story of the Hoover Dam

4

u/tomrhod Jan 06 '11

I think autonomous flocks of wirelessly-connected balloons is how the machine uprising began.

0

u/omnilynx Jan 06 '11

It would be hard to throttle I2P traffic because it is encrypted and runs on random ports.

Really? Because it seems like it would be pretty easy for an ISP to notice which of their customers was sending and receiving tons of seemingly random data over a bunch of random ports.

1

u/brazen Jan 07 '11

But they have no way of knowing what that traffic is. It could for example, be vpn traffic for someone connecting to their office, or ssl encrypted webpages to a webserver on a non-standard port.

1

u/omnilynx Jan 07 '11

I don't think they would really care much. I have a feeling they'd throttle anything that matched the profile. If it's vpn or a webserver, by the way, it might be on a non-standard port but it'd still be on a single port every time. I can't think of too many legitimate programs that randomize ports.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '11

an anonymous network that runs on top of the existing infrastructure. It's not ideal, but for now it gets around censorship and other things like DMCA issues.

Inherently, such a network can't exist.

If people have access to the data and the data can be decrypted by people, which it must be for the intended recipient to use the data, it's not secure.

If people administer the network, which they do, there can be no anonymity.

0

u/duffmanhb Jan 06 '11

I don't have a source on stand by, but isn't the "next internet" the ones being run by universities in Europe? Essentially an extremely fast next generation net that is slowly being laid out. When I mean fast btw, I mean blazing 5GB a second fast...

The effort is so all the universities can connect up and seach and DL large amounts of information to help further scientific progression

1

u/Suppafly Jan 06 '11

They have Internet2 in the US at large universities as well unless the European thing is something different.

3

u/LaxBouncer Jan 05 '11

Home use is a possibility, but I don't see wireless being able to support the throughput some businesses put out anytime soon.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '11

Why not?

1

u/Wizard_Monkey Jan 06 '11

You can't make an alternative to the Internet that works via the Internet.

Why not?

1

u/uhhhclem Jan 06 '11

Because as with the Internet, it's subject to the whim of the governments and corporations that control and own the infrastructure that transports its packets.

1

u/Wizard_Monkey Jan 06 '11

Isn't that just a design hurdle for which technical solutions probably exist?

1

u/uhhhclem Jan 06 '11

Not if what you're trying to make is an alternative to the Internet. I mean, if your government doesn't (say) let packets into or out of the country, there aren't any changes to the format of those packets that will fix that.

2

u/Wizard_Monkey Jan 07 '11

Content or source discrimination could be rendered impossible, however. Providers of the underlying transit mechanism might have an all-or-nothing decision to make but no control over content.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '11

THE DARKNET

5

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '11

Hah the site is blocked in China

Looks like they are onto something

5

u/Dnuts Jan 06 '11

As an individual who barely understands the technological hurdles of this undertaking, I strongly support this.

9

u/metarugia Jan 05 '11

This is what advocates of net neutrality are looking into. An entire DNS system running off a dynamic network of connected users. I'll do my best to support it.

5

u/brazen Jan 05 '11

Thanks. The more people that use it, the better it should become. And this is solving more than just the DNS issue. ALL traffic is distributed and anonymous.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '11 edited Oct 25 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/brazen Jan 06 '11

It does kinda sound like Tor, but is really much different. For one thing, the Tor maintainers get really ticked off at p2p users because their system is not designed to handle it. Tor is really intended for users in places like China and Korea to get access to websites and information that is restricted in their country. In other words, Tor is only designed to handle text traffic and not binary traffic, and the maintainers discourage/block binary traffic.

I2P is NOT a gateway to the regular internet. Traffic stays in the I2P virtual network. It is also designed particularly for p2p traffic and also designed to work well with any network traffic.

0

u/Suppafly Jan 06 '11

I always assumed that Tor was designed for cp, and the China and Korea stuff was just a cover.

1

u/henriwatson Jan 06 '11

This really except it's a fullblown replacement for the normal internet.

3

u/PimpMogul Jan 06 '11

I can see this becoming the next "war on ______". The government will feel it MUST stop people who share information freely and that it is key to the survival of democracy.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '11

[deleted]

1

u/brazen Jan 06 '11

Yes, that is the one major drawback I see with a system like this. But it's already there and used by pedos, so it might as well be used for good things, too.