Mercurial > hg > anonet-resdb

comparison doc/www.anonet2.org/public_pod/faq.pod @ 270:7a03e4246e93 draft

Find changesets by keywords (author, files, the commit message), revision number or hash, or revset expression.
some updates from a1 resources, and updated faq
author Nick <nick@somerandomnick.ano>
date Thu, 18 Nov 2010 19:29:56 +0000
parents bb91561cd116
children 9dc804527a1f
comparison
equal deleted inserted replaced
255:6367899670ff 270:7a03e4246e93
6 6
7 =over 7 =over
8 8
9 =item Why do you use 1.0.0.0/8? It's been assigned to APNIC. You should use private (RFC1918) address space like 10.0.0.0/8. 9 =item Why do you use 1.0.0.0/8? It's been assigned to APNIC. You should use private (RFC1918) address space like 10.0.0.0/8.
10 10
11 AnoNet is a public network, and as such it should use public address 11 AnoNet is a public internet, and as such it should use public address
12 space. ICANN (a private corporation) controls the public resources on 12 space. ICANN (a private corporation) controls the public resources on
13 the IcannNet (a.k.a. the "public" Internet), and has delegated 1.0.0.0/8 13 the IcannNet (a.k.a. the "public" Internet), and has delegated 1.0.0.0/8
14 on the IcannNet to APNIC. AnoNet is a separate public network, that 14 on the IcannNet to APNIC. AnoNet is a separate public internet, that
15 doesn't answer to ICANN (nor to anybody else, for that matter). Now, 15 doesn't answer to ICANN (nor to anybody else, for that matter). Now,
16 that said, when AnoNet started using 1.0.0.0/8 it was reserved (i.e., 16 that said, when AnoNet started using 1.0.0.0/8 it was reserved (i.e.,
17 not to be allocated), but because of ICANN's mismanagement of the IPv4 17 not to be allocated), but because of ICANN's mismanagement of the IPv4
18 address space (which is why nearly all 4 billion addresses have already 18 address space (which is why nearly all 4 billion addresses have already
19 been assigned, in a world with only 6 billion total people, including all 19 been assigned, in a world with only 6 billion total people, including all
22 the "assignable" pool. AnoNet has no control over ICANN policy, so while 22 the "assignable" pool. AnoNet has no control over ICANN policy, so while
23 AnoNet did attempt to avoid directly conflicting with IcannNet addresses, 23 AnoNet did attempt to avoid directly conflicting with IcannNet addresses,
24 ICANN ultimately made sure that attempt would fail. (If you'd like to 24 ICANN ultimately made sure that attempt would fail. (If you'd like to
25 connect to an internet with address space that's still in the ICANN 25 connect to an internet with address space that's still in the ICANN
26 "reserved" pool, you may want to try VAnet.) Using private address 26 "reserved" pool, you may want to try VAnet.) Using private address
27 space is inappropriate for a public network, per RFC1918. (If you'd 27 space is inappropriate for a public internet, per RFC1918. (If you'd
28 like to connect to an internet that uses private address space anyway, 28 like to connect to an internet that uses private address space anyway,
29 you may want to try dn42 at L<http://www.dn42.net/>.) 29 you may want to try dn42 at L<http://www.dn42.net/>.)
30 30
31 =item You should register 1.0.0.0/8, before you use it.
32
33 By the same logic, ICANN should register 0.0.0.0/0, before it uses it.
34 ICANN claims divine authority over 0.0.0.0/8, and allows people to use
35 parts of it if they meet certain conditions set by the IETF and ICANN.
36 The IETF conditions are reasonable if you don't assume that Internet
37 is owned by ICANN. The ICANN conditions, on the other hand, are highly
38 unfair and actively hurt people who want their freedom (by requiring them
39 to give up their anonymity, to sign a restrictive agreement, and to have a
40 relationship with a regulated company with its own restrictive agreement).
41 Therefore, ICANN is not a suitable government for a free internet.
42 The AnoNet1 government claims "trust us instead," but AnoNet2 doesn't
43 require you to trust anybody. That's the only way for you to guarantee
44 that AnoNet will never mismanage IP space the same way that ICANN does.
45
31 =item ICANN isn't mismanaging the IPv4-space. IcannNet usage is just exploding faster than anybody ever predicted. 46 =item ICANN isn't mismanaging the IPv4-space. IcannNet usage is just exploding faster than anybody ever predicted.
32 47
33 L<http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/081610-5billion-devices-internet.html> 48 L<http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/081610-5billion-devices-internet.html>
34 claims that the IcannNet only has about 5 billion total devices, of which 49 claims that the IcannNet only has about 5 billion total devices, of
35 only about 1 billion "regularly connect" (PCs, laptops, etc.). There are 50 which only about 1 billion "regularly connect" (PCs, laptops, etc.).
36 plenty of possible addressing schemes that could accomodate a billion 51 There are plenty of possible addressing schemes that could accomodate a
37 "regularly connecting" devices with an address space quadruple the size. 52 billion "regularly connecting" devices with an address space quadruple
38 ICANN clearly isn't using any of them. By any sane technical definition, 53 the size (even without NAT, if you want). ICANN clearly isn't using
39 that would certainly qualify as "mismanagement." 54 any of them. By any sane technical definition, that would certainly
55 qualify as "mismanagement."
40 56
41 =item If you use 1.0.0.0/8, you're squatting on somebody else's resources. 57 =item If you use 1.0.0.0/8, you're squatting on somebody else's resources.
42 58
43 If you use 1.0.0.0/8 on the IcannNet, then your statement is correct, 59 If you use 1.0.0.0/8 on the IcannNet, then your statement is correct,
44 but AnoNet and IcannNet are two totally separate public internets, 60 but AnoNet and IcannNet are two totally separate public internets,
61 ITU a right to rule the content of those links.) In fact, ICANN itself 77 ITU a right to rule the content of those links.) In fact, ICANN itself
62 will happily confirm that it has neither authority nor ambition to rule 78 will happily confirm that it has neither authority nor ambition to rule
63 the content of IcannNet communications between endpoints, inclusive of 79 the content of IcannNet communications between endpoints, inclusive of
64 AnoNet tunnels. Therefore, even if you buy the logical validity of your 80 AnoNet tunnels. Therefore, even if you buy the logical validity of your
65 claim, ICANN will still shoot it down. 81 claim, ICANN will still shoot it down.
82
83 =item Okay, you're not squatting, but now that 1.0.0.0/8 is being actively used on IcannNet, you should move to 10.0.0.0/8 to avoid conflicts.
84
85 AnoNet is under no obligation to shrink its address space just because IcannNet decided to create a conflict. Also, moving to 10.0.0.0/8 will create more conflicts than staying in 1.0.0.0/8 (since 10.0.0.0/8 is far more congested than 1.0.0.0/8 will ever be).
66 86
67 =item You should move to IPv6, then. 87 =item You should move to IPv6, then.
68 88
69 That's not the only logical conclusion, based on the above. However, AnoNet has no rules, so you're more than welcome to move to IPv6, and/or to try to convince others to do the same. As long as you don't start out with unrealistic expectations, you probably won't be disappointed with the results of your preaching effort. [Update: It appears that IPv6 may have some deployment on AnoNet, now. (Maybe somebody read the above as a challenge and decided to run with it.) Perhaps the guys using it will fill in some details here.] 89 That's not the only logical conclusion, based on the above. However, AnoNet has no rules, so you're more than welcome to move to IPv6, and/or to try to convince others to do the same. As long as you don't start out with unrealistic expectations, you probably won't be disappointed with the results of your preaching effort. [Update: It appears that IPv6 may have some deployment on AnoNet, now. (Maybe somebody read the above as a challenge and decided to run with it.) Perhaps the guys using it will fill in some details here.]
70 90