Slashdot Mirror


The Ambitions and Challenges of Mesh Networks and the Local Internet Movement

Lashdots writes: Two artists in New York are hatching a plan to teach kids about the internet by building their own. They'll be creating a small, decentralized network, similar to a mesh network, to access other computers, and they'll be developing their own simple social network to communicate with other people. It's part of a growing movement to supplement the Internet with resilient, local alternatives. "And yet, while the decentralized, ad hoc network architecture appeals philosophically to tech-savvy users fed up with monopolistic ISPs, nobody’s found a way to make mesh networks work easily and efficiently enough to replace home Internet connections. Built more for resiliency than for speed, each participating router must continuously search for the best paths to far-flung machines. For now, that makes them of limited interest to many ordinary consumers who simply want to check their email and watch movies."

56 comments

  1. Not so fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://polysome.io

    1. Re:Not so fast by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      That is seriously one of the worst hipster 'startup style' sites I've seen. The background video is fucking distracting. Also the links in the menus don't seem to do anything.

    2. Re:Not so fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to miss the point. Your punishment is Slashdot beta.

    3. Re:Not so fast by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Ouch. Now that's cruel and unusual punishment...

    4. Re:Not so fast by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      the point of the article that this "newly unlicensed whitespace spectrum will be deployed across San Francisco and Seattle supplying high speed network access at no cost whatsoever to end users." etc mesh mesh stuff has been touted over and over again now for 15 years. OVER FIFTEEN YEARS.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  2. ISPs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ya, the ISPs are the problem, not the NSA.

    1. Re:ISPs? by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Ya, the ISPs are the problem, not the NSA.

      Nobody said that was the issue.
      Skimming the article, I didn't see the NSA mentioned once.

      Thanks for playing, though!

  3. Great, more hipster SJWs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The internet once provided users the space to share their ideas without prejudice against their age, race, gender, sexual orientation, or other aspects of their identity," Phiffer and McNeil wrote. "These workshops offer the opportunity to experience what the Internet used to be like, and could be like again—as an open forum for many people to share their ideas."

    Once provided? Last I checked, socjus has been plastered all over every major site for ages now. It's literally everywhere. Meanwhile, what happens to those who challenge the opinions or statements of the 'oppressed'? They get lambasted as 'bigots'. These refrains are always from the presumption that nothing has been done and we're still living pre civil war slavery or something. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of darknets, but the socjus refrain has outlived its welcome.

    1. Re: Great, more hipster SJWs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you "love the idea of darknets"? Darknets are used to do illegal dealings. Do you have a vested interest in illegal dealings? The authorities should investigate you.

    2. Re:Great, more hipster SJWs by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      totes congrats for using - with "socjus" - an even more annoying alternative to "SJW " you utter plank

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    3. Re:Great, more hipster SJWs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TL;DR I'm angry because I'm old. GET OFF MY LAWN!

  4. seems easy, then isn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's all great fun when you can just let all the Windows laptops assign a 169. address, basically going back to the NetBEUI days - but then you need to know about real routing, big-boy topics like BGP, and suddenly its not about sticking it to the man, it's about going home and playing WoW on your FIOS connection.

    IT is hard.

    1. Re:seems easy, then isn't by mlts · · Score: 1

      IPv6 seems like it would be the ideal solution in this case. No NAT trickery needed.

      Of course, it would be wise to have firewalls in place. Even with a mesh, there needs to be a boundary with firewalls in place, maybe even thought for core/edge fabric design as well.

  5. Intractable issue by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The most intractable issue, even once the routing problem is solved, is that huge amounts of traffic are all going to a few places, and those places require a lot of bandwidth. For example, it would really suck to live next to Google's data centers, or even Slashdot's data centers, because a lot of traffic would be going through your wifi to get to Google.

    IF traffic were spread evenly across the network, there wouldn't be a problem, but it's not. So you kind of need a backbone of some sort. (maybe someone solved this? Solution is unknown to me, though)

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re: Intractable issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe replicating mass storage. Routing should be easier if your immediate neighboring nodehas it already. Storage us getting cheaper and cheaper.

    2. Re: Intractable issue by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That can help but there are limits to what can be cached.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re: Intractable issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy Peasy
      Download the internet.

    4. Re:Intractable issue by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      More subscribers means more bandwidth, so you locate the servers in a distributed fashion, near where the users are. This is already the trend, but it would be moreso.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re: Intractable issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like all https, which everyone is moving towards.

    6. Re:Intractable issue by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've been doing mesh stuff for over a decade, though I'm not the expert in it. This is not easy stuff. There's some of it that might work in this case though: assume everyone is near enough to each other for good connectivity, and waste power and bandwidth because you're constantly reevaluating your routes but that's ok because these are probably constantly powered laptops. Ie, a dorm room.

      But it's not going to work well for longer and less reliable links. They'll need to do the sorts of things that wifi doesn't do (I'm assuming wifi because they don't sound like the people to design their own radios). Then there will be the mess of optimizing their network so someone isn't stuck with horrid latency because of all the hops necessary to reach them. Line of sight issues are messy and need optimization too, probably need repeater or bridge nodes. If the nodes are mobile then the constant updating of routing tables wil screw things up as you move from one internet bridge to another. Maybe better if you have immobile wifi hotspots which are then connected to a mesh, an idea that's been around awhile.

    7. Re:Intractable issue by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      It's already distributed, but living next to a data center is going to be a lousy because everyone will want to use your bandwidth....even if the data center is small

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Intractable issue by adolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're making the (perhaps flawed) assumption that the purpose of such a mesh network is to access the greater Internet.

      If I want Internet access, I'll just pay for it: Basic and relatively slow (or relatively fast, depending on point of view) always-on ISP service is cheaper than it ever has been.

      If I want mesh network access, I'll just build a node and find some folks to peer with.

      If I can't get to the Internet from the mesh, and can't get to the mesh from the Internet, I'm OK with that.

      If Google elects to organize a mesh's data on their behalf, then they can co-locate on that mesh. If this results in poorer performance than they expect, they can add more geographically-diverse nodes of their own until they meet demand.

      If someone wants to monetize or give away a path to interconnect the meshes to eachother or any other network (including the greater Internet), they do so on their own accord.

    9. Re:Intractable issue by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      You're making the (perhaps flawed) assumption that the purpose of such a mesh network is to access the greater Internet.

      The summary kind of implies that people want to use a mesh to connect to the greater Internet.
      After reading your post, I'm not really sure what other use you have for a mesh network, other than to connect to it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:Intractable issue by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I can see one potential solution: A content-addressible distributed store. No-one has ever designed a suitable protocol because there is the usual chicken-and-egg problem, plus ISPs would be weary of creating the greatest tool for piracy since Usenet.

    11. Re:Intractable issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      each device in the mesh could have a moderate capacity internal storage proxy cache which could devote bandwidth to aggressively move data to hang off along pathways between endpoints.

    12. Re:Intractable issue by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Caching doesn't work for everything

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    13. Re:Intractable issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only solution is basically the same we have with CDN (Content Distribution Networks), that is, not to have a central Google. Key infrastructure has to be replicated and located near the consumer. This is necessary not only for service quality, but for resilience as well.

    14. Re:Intractable issue by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      have every mesh node have a rate limit which automatically flags up to nearby nodes that it is being approached and so the other nearby nodes have to route around that mesh node.

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    15. Re:Intractable issue by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Ok.....do you see any potential problems with this approach?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    16. Re:Intractable issue by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      True. But it works for a lot of things - including most of the really big things, like images, video and archives. If you were to divide every transfer on the internet into 'potentially cachable' and 'dynamic' you'd find just about every file over a megabyte is in the first set. A content-addressible caching system would greatly reduce the load on the network by removing most of the big downloads, freeing up precious capacity for the non-cachable things. You can include a fallback to the conventional download system for those situations in which neither you nor any of your immediate neighbours have the required content.

    17. Re:Intractable issue by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Even after eliminating the static files, there's still a lot of data

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    18. Re:Intractable issue by adolf · · Score: 1

      After reading your post, I'm not really sure what other use you have for an Internet, other than to connect to it.

      (Also: 1994 called. They want their Luddite back.)

    19. Re: Intractable issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if I had 100 MeshUnits each capable of 128GB of storage and each one able to talk to any one of the 99 others within range. Then add to this as the circle gets bigger...
      A multihoming cache could be extremely effective.

    20. Re: Intractable issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The most important part would be per device encryption and network wide encryption which would utilise an open platform encrypted MITM type scheme for secure transactions but also enabling the cache to benefit every node involved. Also the power of distributed processing of the network securely.

      The encrypted network protocol could implement device triangulation using rx/tx power to help interrogate and scrutinise problematic nodes and also to block instance MITM attacks by enabling units to ignore those attempts, esp when negotiating initial encrypted network connections.

      A possible scenario of this type of network to join to would be to physically go to a trusted zone with the mesh unit and have it communicate freely with the network there until the network grants it trust after a few minutes of saying hi to everybody and then receiving parts of a second temp key for the network connection over time using the mesh's own public key exchange. A trusted zone would be one that may be designated by gps and publicly known and limited to 1 or a very few within x km's of each other per city. The device then enters a mode that if becomes separated from the network for more than the allowable heartbeat (Each missed heartbeat would have to be advised back to the secure network of the time it was supposed to call in) timeout period then would become untrusted by the network until back in a trusted zone physically.

      Network security of multiple devices could morph and change over time or virtually instantaneously as naughty nodes get spotted and all nodes evolve to reject that node from communications.

      Effectively this could be a living breathing network. The network would have to be designed to let everyone play by it's very simple but limited rules that once set in concrete, cannot change, except only for allowing encryption schemes to evolve with group acceptance in the publicly trusted zones.

      Ultimately, these zones become a public forum which spreads trust. If a zone becomes untrusted, which could be as simple as x number of users in the space removing their batteries, then the zone gets thrown into question.

      A network like this becomes resilient to gps attacks as well by utilising node powers and verifying gps data, retransmitting what it should be to each unit...

    21. Re:Intractable issue by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      so.. freenet?
      it works for a really small subset of big things. that's the problem.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    22. Re:Intractable issue by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      After reading your post, I'm not really sure what other use you have for an Internet, other than to connect to it.

      (Also: 1994 called. They want their Luddite back.)

      Yeah, regurgitating a stale meme rather than providing an answer really proves how vital the internet is. Good work.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    23. Re:Intractable issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There lies the real problem with mesh networking. Mesh networking is a great concept if its one someone else's dime, but someone is going to have to fork over significant money and assume the legal risks of connecting the mesh to the real internet. The people who think of mesh networking in terms of "Dude! Free Internet!, I can cancel my Comcast subscription now!" aren't going to be the ones willing to do so. The ratio of Moochers vs providers is going to be way too high.

    24. Re:Intractable issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the major reasons to use a mesh network is because it is decentralised. If you're mostly going to use it to access centralised services, it somewhat defeats the object.

      Clearly it makes sense to use the existing, more centralised network to access centralised services. Mesh networks can't easily compete for that use case, and don't really offer much advantage in it.

      Mesh networks should instead be paired with highly decentralised protocols and services that spread traffic evenly throughout the mesh. So, not so much Google as YaCy (maybe not actually YaCy, buit something along those lines).

    25. Re:Intractable issue by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      You left out
      1. Wireless will never have the bandwidth of fiber.
      2. They will be limited to very close to line of sight. Sucks to have national park, state park or even a large farm in the way.

      "IF traffic were spread evenly across the network, there wouldn't be a problem, but it's not. So you kind of need a backbone of some sort."
      In theory caching would work but that would have issues with syncing.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    26. Re:Intractable issue by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Mainly, I'm interested in finding what's on other people's servers.

      Though to be fair, the vast majority of those servers are crap. If I could get the 1995 internet back, I would take it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    27. Re: Intractable issue by adolf · · Score: 1

      The Internet in 1995 was a special place, indeed.

      Personally I see a small mesh as a potential cross between what both the Internet and the local BBS scene used to be.

      What this might be useful for is in the eye of the beholder.

    28. Re:Intractable issue by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      There's a lot of data. But there's also a lot less data than without it.

  6. 99.9999% of sites have 1-3 servers per continent by raymorris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of the just over 1 billion web sites currently online, fewer than 0.000001% have more than 3 servers per CONTINENT. To have a server in each province / state would increase the costs several thousandfold.

    There are about ten web sites in the world that could actually have servers in thousands of locations without going bankrupt.

    There is a reason your neighborhood street that you live on isn't 2,000 miles long. It connects to a minor collector (street with several stop signs), which then connects to a major collector (street with a few stop signs), which then connects to an arterial (street with stop lights), which connects to a major arterial (three or more lanes each way), which then connects to a freeway, which then connects to an interstate. Streets are laid out like that because a hierarchy of larger and larger paths is the only halfway efficient way to move stuff from any house in the country to any other house. That's just as true with digital stuff - it only works when you put fat fiber under the rivers, through the deserts, and over the mountains.

    Which means someone has to decide where to spend $20 million on the next chunk of backbone, and someone has to fork over $20 million and hope that it's the right technology, in the right place, at the right time, and implemented properly.

  7. eero may be helpful hardware solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    my friend worked on the firmware and says it's the real deal, works as advertised or better. seems like this would take some of the tech pain from local network building...
    https://www.eero.com/

  8. Re:99.9999% of sites have 1-3 servers per continen by Nethead · · Score: 1

    So you're saying that come the Zombie Apocalypse I won't be able to order kitty litter from Amazon?

    --
    -- I have a private email server in my basement.
  9. VPN across the internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there any reason why a wireless router could not identify another wireless router 3 hops away then connect to it via an ipsec?

    Basically, every wireless router could create a route x hops away providing a more stable and hard to detect backbone for the mesh network.

    How many vpn connections could a wireless router maintain?

    Could this be used to even out the speed issues, giving protocols that need it preference.

    No need to go meet and greet your neighbor's neighbor. The router can find others and tunnel to them.

  10. Are you just reinventing UUCP? by swb · · Score: 1

    ...of which USENET was a distributed component?

    I sometimes wonder if/when it will get sort of re-deployed with a focus on secure communication and secure content distribution.

    1. Re: Are you just reinventing UUCP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And fidonet BBC stuff. People did similar things with CompuServe and other BBS.

      Login to the system, download new content, get off so you stop paying for the connection or tying it up, then use the content offline.

      Email and news (Usenet, forums) and even off hours downloads were done on a client to a server.

      Most stuff today is interactive based because its easier or has to be (chat, games)

    2. Re:Are you just reinventing UUCP? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Very nearly. The big difference I see would be addressing requests via hash. That means it's just about impossible for a rogue node to break anything, either deliberately or as part of an attack - if the client gets anything other than what it requested, the hash doesn't match.

      Usenet with security makes Freenet - but Freenet is heavily focused on a paranoid level of resistance to monitoring which seriously impairs performance.

  11. Re:99.9999% of sites have 1-3 servers per continen by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    There are about ten web sites in the world that could actually have servers in thousands of locations without going bankrupt.

    You're hilarious. You don't even get how this works. You just use data centers located in population centers like always. In those population centers, there are more subscribers, so there is more available bandwidth.

    We may need formal links between population centers. Just like roads, these would reasonably be public infrastructure.

    Meanwhile, only CDNs really need to be hosted in these locations, so some websites' architectures will change slightly with the heavy content hosted by third parties and the rest not, but so what? That trend is proceeding apace anyhow.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  12. you've obviously never BEEN in a datacenter by raymorris · · Score: 1

    It's pretty obvious you've never so much as been in a datacenter, not have any idea how CDNs work (or more _fail_ to work, because few pay any attention to the http spec on proxies).

    Some of us actually build this shit and know how it works.

    1. Re:you've obviously never BEEN in a datacenter by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Hahaha fail to work. Sure, CDNs fail all the time, but they are also used all the time, and that use is only becoming more prevalent. You're going to have to figure out how they work eventually, if you want to keep working.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  13. Mesh Design by Agripa · · Score: 1

    I looked into this years ago from the physical layer support for full duplex and half duplex nodes (this was fun since I am a hardware guy) all the way up to designing a node addressing scheme which both helped with routing and allowed dynamic adding and deleting nodes (not so much fun but an interesting problem). The largest problem I found was scaling which would have required tunnels (wormholes) to high traffic endpoints or to shunt traffic around congested areas. Discouraging free riders was handled with public-private key enforced tokens; passing traffic for others (especially through tunnels) earned tokens (reputation) while generating traffic used them and there was a scaling issue there was well; in retrospect that part operated like a modern cryptocurrency. Like the original IPv6, all traffic was encrypted between endpoints by design. CPU and RAM requirements back then were non-trivial but ARM has come a long way.

  14. Re:99.9999% of sites have 1-3 servers per continen by adolf · · Score: 1

    There are about ten web sites in the world that could actually have servers in thousands of locations without going bankrupt.

    You don't need a server. You need a COTS router running OpenWRT and OpenVPN (with hardware acceleration), a couple of well-placed antennas, and a commercial- (not carrier-) grade symmetric DSL, cable, or wireless connection.

    In other words: You don't need a million spinning-disks server with its own abilities to serve content, you need a a million low-power NAPs with a gateway to your own content.

    How much traffic does google.com see from my small Ohio town of ~45k citizens? Answer: Not enough to swamp a well-proportioned 802.11a link. Or a 45Mbps T3. Or a 75Mbps symmetric DOCSIS connection from TWC...all of which are cheaper than hosting actual servers on a mesh.

    An existing Internet service that wants to be on a local mesh doesn't need a server, per se, but just a point of access to their existing servers.

    And I'm sure I won't be the first to volunteer my resources (land, electricity) in exchange for them to do just this, as long as I get fast Internet and a mesh node in exchange. If I get a fueled and maintained standby generator to use, too, I might even pay them to let them use my resources...but either way, it's win-win.

    (What if a node fails because COTS routers are shit, or power is out, or TWC has fucked up that branch? Who cares. There will be other nodes, they'll just be a few more hops away than usual. Yay, redundancy.)

    (Oh, you're a small website? Akamai has a theoretical mesh package for you! And I'll gladly use an Akamai mesh node as a warm footstool, after I build the tower, string the cable, and align the antennae while I bask in the warm glow of fast and free Interwebs for myself.)

  15. 5 billion web pages in 4MB!? Impressive! by raymorris · · Score: 1

    [quote]
    You don't need a server. You need a COTS router running OpenWRT and OpenVPN (with hardware acceleration), a couple of well-placed antennas, and a commercial- (not carrier-) grade symmetric DSL, cable, or wireless connection.

    In other words: You don't need a million spinning-disks server with its own abilities to serve content, you need a a million low-power NAPs with a gateway to your own content.
    How much traffic does google.com see from my small Ohio town of ~45k citizens? Answer: Not enough to swamp a well-proportioned 802.11a link. Or a 45Mbps T3. Or a 75Mbps symmetric DOCSIS connection from TWC...all of which are cheaper than hosting actual servers
    [/quote]

    You used Google.com as your example. I want to understand what you're suggesting. Are you saying that your router , which is "cheaper than actual servers" is going to serve Google.com search results? It's going hold and query the database of over 5 billion webpages, while doing all of the calculations to rank them for each search term people type in? That's pretty impressive for a little OpenWRT router. If you find a way to do that you'll get really, really rich because right now companies like Google spend hundreds of millions of dollars putting together racks and racks of equipment to be able to rank sort through billions of pages in under a second.

    Perhaps that's not what you're saying. Perhaps you're suggesting that you and your neighbors could use wi-Fi or coax to connect to each other, then the neighborhood would be connected to the backbone as usual. I've seen something like that work with television. The neighborhood had one big antenna tower, then there was coax running to each house from the antenna. It was called Community Antenna TV, or catv. Today it's better known as "cable tv".

    You see what happens is that in your neighborhood , one family has two Netflix streams running constantly every evening and another guy just wants to check his email. The neighborhood has a 100 Mbps backbone connection, so when a bunch of people try to watch Netflix and Youtube from 6:00 PM - 9:00PM, it gets bogged down. The people just checking their email don't want to pay $80 / month for the neighborhood to have a true gigabit backbone to the internet. Rather, they think the families with multiple Netflix streams should pay their fair share - since they are using ten times as much, they should pay most of the cost. So you end up having different people paying different rates to get different speeds, and someone has to manage all of that. You can hire a company to manage all that for you, making sure everyone is paying their share for the backbone, the shared equipment, line maintenance, etc. The companies who manage all that stuff for your neighborhood are called "ISPs".

    1. Re:5 billion web pages in 4MB!? Impressive! by adolf · · Score: 1

      No.

      I'm suggesting that it route.

      Nowhere did I suggest that Google not have their own (hard-wired, or otherwise out-of-band) connection to that router; indeed, I expect that they would. They've already got server farms; all they need are geographically-diverse mesh nodes.

      And you're making the logical error that others seem to be making: That every purpose in having any network is to get free and fast access to the greater Internet, and anything that fails at this promise is utterly useless.

      Following this misguided tangent, mesh is and must be a failure, because we don't (and can never) have enough unlicensed spectral bandwidth to make this happen.