From e0ef26ecbddc2d7260dc56a52295cefe59e3db71 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nick Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 08:06:38 +0000 Subject: added more FAQs and a darknet comparison --- .../public_pod/darknet_comparison.pod | 31 +++++ doc/www.anonet2.org/public_pod/faq.pod | 130 +++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 161 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/www.anonet2.org/public_pod/darknet_comparison.pod diff --git a/doc/www.anonet2.org/public_pod/darknet_comparison.pod b/doc/www.anonet2.org/public_pod/darknet_comparison.pod new file mode 100644 index 0000000..dddaff2 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/www.anonet2.org/public_pod/darknet_comparison.pod @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +=head1 Darknet Comparison + +Back to homepage - L + +=begin html + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Overview
 AnoNet1AnoNet2dn42VAnet
Claimed Purposeanonymity to prevent censorshipanonymity to preserve censorshiphave fun with BGPfreedom and network efficiency
Claimed Governmentnearly nonenonenearly nonebackbone only
Actual Governmentoligarchynonenearly nonebackbone only
Actual Government betrays Claimed Purposeyesnonono
Centralized Critical Infrastructurewiki (includes resource database), client port, IRCnonewiki, IRCall
Decentralized Critical Infrastructureroutingallrouting, resource databasenone
Current Size20-30~1040-50<5
Average Monthly Growth~0%~20%~5%~20%
Activity Levelmediummediummediumlow
Interdarknet Connectivitycensored access to AnoNet2 (must use AnoNet2 DNS), censored access to dn42 (must use AnoNet2 DNS)full routing to part of AnoNet1, full routing to part of dn42, full routing to VAnetcensored access to AnoNet (1&2, must use SRN's DNS), censored access to VAnet (must use SRN's DNS)full routing to part of AnoNet1, full routing to AnoNet2, full routing to part of dn42
DNS CoverageAnoNet1AnoNet (1&2), dn42, VAnet, IcannNetdn42, IcannNetAnoNet (1&2), dn42, VAnet, IcannNet
Peering PrerequisitesOpenVPN, BGP daemon, sustained IRC participation for over a monthOpenVPN or tinc or quicktun, BGP daemon or static routingOpenVPN, BGP daemon or static routingdepends on individual PoP policy
Services
 AnoNet1AnoNet2dn42VAnet
Routingdecentralizeddecentralizeddecentralizedcentralized
Resource Databasecentralized (part of wiki)decentralized (part of git-based resdb)decentralized (part of monotone-based registry)centralized (ask Borg)
Documentationcentralized (crzydmnd's wiki)decentralized (part of git-based resdb)centralized (helios's wiki)centralized (vanet.org)
Chatroomcentralized (single IRCnet)decentralized (ad-hoc relaying between IRC and Jabber chatrooms)semicentralized (single IRCnet, with a Jabber chatroom relay)decentralized (shared with AnoNet2)
DNScentralized (from wiki), several official "rootservers"decentralized (from resdb), each user fields his own, public nameservers available for the lazydecentralized (from registry), multiple competing deploymentscentralized (from svn), multiple competing deployments
+ +=end html diff --git a/doc/www.anonet2.org/public_pod/faq.pod b/doc/www.anonet2.org/public_pod/faq.pod index 58c4f67..ecce115 100644 --- a/doc/www.anonet2.org/public_pod/faq.pod +++ b/doc/www.anonet2.org/public_pod/faq.pod @@ -218,3 +218,133 @@ not likely, but people may /ignore you if you make a practice of saying stuff that people don't consider worth hearing =back + +=head2 AnoNet1 vs. AnoNet2 + +=over + +=item Why does AnoNet2 exist? What's wrong with AnoNet1? + +There used to be only one AnoNet. Unfortunately, a few bad apples (who +happen to be the guys who control AnoNet1) split AnoNet by forcing a part +of AnoNet to become disconnected from the rest of AnoNet. That piece +(AnoNet2) has been steadily growing, while "the rest" (AnoNet1) has been +slowly decaying. + +=item Is AnoNet1 dead, then? + +AnoNet1 is far from dead. In fact, it still has roughly twice the +user-base of AnoNet2. However, AnoNet2 has more services online, at this +stage. (Most of the old AnoNet1 services are long defunct, by now, as +are many of its users.) AnoNet2 has also been experiencing rather solid +sustained growth, while the AnoNet1 population growth is mostly flat. + +=item What's the difference between AnoNet1 and AnoNet2, then? + +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.) + +=item Who's "the management" in AnoNet2? What prevents it from becoming evil when AnoNet2 grows closer to the size of AnoNet1? + +AnoNet2 (like AnoNet1) has no official government. Unlike AnoNet1, +though, AnoNet2's technical construction is such that the unofficial +government members (primarily UFO and SRN, at this point) don't have +enough power to force their way (not to mention that they don't really +_want_ to force their way, anyway). A recent practical example of +this anarchy appears to be IPv6: SRN has made no secret of his strong +opposition to IPv6, but that doesn't seem to be stopping an enterprising +new AnoNet2 user from deploying it himself and even soliciting support +from others, even after "the management" (both UFO and SRN) flatly +refused to participate. + +=item Why don't AnoNet1 and AnoNet2 merge again? + +The short answer is that a number of people have tried to do just that, +but AnoNet1 has adopted an exclusionary policy towards AnoNet2, for some +unspecified reason. You get bonus points if you can figure out what that +reason is. (AnoNet2 has been very careful to avoid collisions in resource +allocations with AnoNet1, even though AnoNet1 has deliberately removed +its own record of AnoNet2 resources in a recent "cleanup" of the DNS. +If AnoNet1 ever decides to reconnect with AnoNet2, no technical problems +should result.) + +=item Why does AnoNet2 filter advertisements to AnoNet1? Doesn't that prevent the two darknets from ever merging again? + +AnoNet1 has deemed the filters necessary, for some unspecified reason. +(Advertising AnoNet2 routes on AnoNet1 is a great way to get yourself +kicked from AnoNet1.) Again, you get bonus points if you can figure out +what that reason is. (Hint: crzydmnd and risc likely know the reason, +but good luck getting them to spill the beans. Censoring the question +seems to be their favorite "answer.") Suffice it to say that if AnoNet1 +wanted to merge with AnoNet2, AnoNet2 wouldn't object. + +=item Do I have to choose between AnoNet1 and AnoNet2, or is there a way to join both? + +There's no need to choose one or the other. As long as you don't +advertise AnoNet2 routes into AnoNet1, you should be fine: their Salem +witch hunt against "dual citizens" seems to have died off by now. +If you're currently getting to AnoNet1 through the official AnoNet1 CP +(run by Kaos), simply switch to UFO's CP, and you'll automatically be +connected to both, so you can check them both out and figure out at your +own pace what you want to do. + +=item Which darknet preserves my anonymity better, AnoNet1 or AnoNet2? + +Well, AnoNet1 has stricter rules (and more centralization, as a +prerequisite to rule enforcement), so as long as you trust "the powers +that be" to preserve your anonymity, you get better anonymity guarantees. +However, your anonymity faces significant risk if any member of the +AnoNet1 "government" (which doesn't even admit who's who) betrays your +trust. (That risk isn't so far-fetched, incidentally, since any type +of law enforcement "sting-type" operation against one of those guys is +likely to compromise his guarantees, even through no malice on his part. +Now, since malice has already been observed, the guarantees become even +less reliable.) The AnoNet2 rules have more room for flexibility, +since centralized police authority is not available on AnoNet2. +Therefore, your anonymity guarantees are somewhat weaker, but far more +likely to be reliable. You also have better theoretical anonymity on +AnoNet2, because marking a subnet "reserved" on AnoNet1 no longer works. +("The management" is too nosy, and threatens disconnection against anyone +who doesn't provide requested information.) + +=item Where, then, am I more anonymous? + +In the real world, AnoNet2 anonymity wins, hands down. (On AnoNet1, +any Easystreet network administrator can easily correlate IcannNet IP +addresses with CP IP addresses and IRC nicks, allowing him to reliably +learn the identity of all new AnoNet1 members. AnoNet2 has many different +ways of joining, including one rather interesting tor-based approach +recently demonstrated, where the user never showed his IcannNet IP +address to anyone on AnoNet2.) + +=back + +=head2 AnoNet vs. IcannNet + +=over + +=item What's IcannNet??? + +IcannNet is the internet (mis)managed by ICANN. It's what most people +call "the" Internet. + +=item What's wrong with IcannNet? + +The short answer is that ICANN is very highly centralized, resulting +in centralized decision-making (and centralized lobbying, arm-twisting, +etc.). + +=item Does AnoNet really aim to replace IcannNet? + +Yes, the long-term goal behind AnoNet is to render IcannNet obsolete. +In the short-term, though, it'd be highly unlikely for IcannNet to +disappear even in the hypothetical case where everyone were to move to +AnoNet tomorrow, since the overwhelming majority of AnoNet peering is +tunneled over IcannNet. + +=back -- cgit v1.2.3