diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/www.anonet2.org/public_pod')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/www.anonet2.org/public_pod/faq.pod | 39 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/www.anonet2.org/public_pod/links.pod | 2 |
2 files changed, 29 insertions, 12 deletions
diff --git a/doc/www.anonet2.org/public_pod/faq.pod b/doc/www.anonet2.org/public_pod/faq.pod index e180aca..de49423 100644 --- a/doc/www.anonet2.org/public_pod/faq.pod +++ b/doc/www.anonet2.org/public_pod/faq.pod @@ -28,6 +28,16 @@ space is inappropriate for a public network, per RFC1918. (If you'd like to connect to an internet that uses private address space anyway, you may want to try dn42 at L<http://www.dn42.net/>.) +=item ICANN isn't mismanaging the IPv4-space. IcannNet usage is just exploding faster than anybody ever predicted. + +L<http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/081610-5billion-devices-internet.html> +claims that the IcannNet only has about 5 billion total devices, of which +only about 1 billion "regularly connect" (PCs, laptops, etc.). There are +plenty of possible addressing schemes that could accomodate a billion +"regularly connecting" devices with an address space quadruple the size. +ICANN clearly isn't using any of them. By any sane technical definition, +that would certainly qualify as "mismanagement." + =item If you use 1.0.0.0/8, you're squatting on somebody else's resources. If you use 1.0.0.0/8 on the IcannNet, then your statement is correct, @@ -46,14 +56,17 @@ steal it for some "public" network.) That last accusation has no logical basis. Just because most AnoNet links are tunneled over the IcannNet doesn't give ICANN a right to rule -the content of those tunnels. +the content of those tunnels. (In almost exactly the same way, just +because most IcannNet links move over telecom equipment doesn't give the +ITU a right to rule the content of those links.) In fact, ICANN itself +will happily confirm that it has neither authority nor ambition to rule +the content of IcannNet communications between endpoints, inclusive of +AnoNet tunnels. Therefore, even if you buy the logical validity of your +claim, ICANN will still shoot it down. =item You should move to IPv6, then. -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. +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.] =back @@ -165,7 +178,7 @@ etc.), and he'll add them into his own nameservers. =item What can I do with my own domain? You can host Web pages, an FTP site, IRC, email, an online shop (but -taking payments may not be simple), or anything else that strikes +taking payments may not be so simple), or anything else that strikes your fancy. =back @@ -243,11 +256,11 @@ sustained growth, while the AnoNet1 population growth is mostly flat. AnoNet2 lost peering with AnoNet1 because AnoNet1 is too centralized to avoid censorship. AnoNet2, therefore, is essentially a reboot of -AnoNet1, while paying careful attention to preventing another AnoNet -split from ever being necessary. (The irony, of course, is that the -level of decentralization engineered into AnoNet2 makes it trivial for -anyone in AnoNet2 to fork it. Such a fork doesn't happen simply because -"the management" hasn't made one necessary.) +AnoNet1, while paying careful attention to preventing another AnoNet split +from ever being necessary. (The irony, of course, is that the level of +decentralization engineered into AnoNet2 makes it trivial for anyone in +AnoNet2 to split it. Such a split doesn't happen simply because "the +management" hasn't done anything stupid enough to make one necessary.) =item Who's "the management" in AnoNet2? What prevents it from becoming evil when AnoNet2 grows closer to the size of AnoNet1? @@ -324,7 +337,9 @@ address to anyone on AnoNet2.) =item How can I learn more about AnoNet1 vs. AnoNet2? -L<http://www.anonet2.org/darknet_comparison> +L<http://www.anonet2.org/darknet_comparison> gives a basic comparison. +If you want more in-depth information about the relative anonymity value +of each, L<http://www.anonet2.org/anonymity> may be what you're after. =back diff --git a/doc/www.anonet2.org/public_pod/links.pod b/doc/www.anonet2.org/public_pod/links.pod index fd4400e..afffd28 100644 --- a/doc/www.anonet2.org/public_pod/links.pod +++ b/doc/www.anonet2.org/public_pod/links.pod @@ -4,6 +4,8 @@ Back to homepage - L<http://www.anonet2.org/> This is a collection of links that you may find interesting: +20100818 - L<http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/64074> + 20100720 - L<http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2006/05/70886> (thanks L<http://darknet.me/privacy.html>) 20100518 - L<http://torrentfreak.com/damned-pirates-hollywood-sets-10-billion-box-office-record-091211/> |