On a second thought, why don't we change the angle of this subject? Nowadays, dual ISP are pretty common. I may have a cable from Verizon broadband and a wireless connection from AT&T at the same time. Now suppose I want to run a bandwidth-demanding online service, OnLive<http://www.onlive.com/> for example, let's say it requires a 10mbps connection, my cable and my wireless each has only a 6mbps connection. Can I *combine* the speed of these two connections as one so I can use OnLive? I think it's a legit problem IETF need to address. If there are more and more ISP and connection availability due to advance of technology, people will always seek for a way to exploit a combination potential of full bandwidth. Now, anti-censorship is only a by product of the protocol. We can create a virtual ISP in a single ISP connection, but it's *hard* to surveillance or censor. I mistakenly replied to Dave alone not to the list, sorry. So here's what I previously said few days ago: On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 11:27 AM, MtFBwU <may.4thbwu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thanks for all the replies >> Such a censorship system would be quite stupid. We would not even >> need complicated protocols to workaround it, just using synonyms >> or euphemisms would suffice. > Haha, very true indeed. Now let me tell you a real story > China blocked youtube right? First it does DNS tamper, so I setup a local > DNS server, forward 8.8.8.8 using TCP would solve the problem. > Then the Great Firewall (G.F.W.) do URL blocking, it concatenate the HOST > header and the GET strings together then judge if your HTTP query is > unwelcome. I have also discovered a way to bypass it, we can actually use a > double or multiple space after GET like > GET / HTTP/1.1 > HOST: www.youtube.com > I can get partial return of HTML. Because sadly, the last block, DPI checkes > this string > <title>YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.</title> > It would RST you in the middle of a transport. So I can only load HTML up to > the title part > So really, fighting against censorship is a two-way game. Yes we can > use synonyms or euphemisms in domestic communications, we can do double > thinking, but the real problem is we can not ask the other end like youtube > or google to change its fingerprints regularly and accordingly to > each censorship. We have to and we can solve the problem in a lower level, > once and for all. > >> he resistance in Cuba uses USB thumb drives to transport >> information. Looking at ways to improve the use of such drives is likely to >> produce a more effective counter-censorship scheme. > You see, the G.F.W is in fact, under a lot of pressure. Evidence shows that > China use a massive cluster of Shuguang 4000L super computer farm to do the > censorship job, if we have a FEC-like protocol, along with multiple > BitTorrent downloading sessions simultaneously open on each client, then the > censorship would not work properly. In the past we have encountered GFW > failure from time to time, because it was during the evening where Internet > activity peaks in China. > In this real-time web world, using USB thumb would be too slow for important > information spreading. :P > >> What "prior art" research have you done? What did you find, and why > wasn't it suitable? What do you see as the already available building > blocks, or concepts to extend? > I am very sorry, I know IETF is a place where people discuss technical > details, but currently I do not have that comprehensive knowledge to go any > futther. As a user, this thread is more like just a suggestion to you guys, > if there will be an important protocol to be designed for the future, please > consider making it to be intermediate node agnostic. > On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Dave Aronson <ietf2dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 09:59, MtFBwU <may.4thbwu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > I am an average Internet user from China. Sorry for my bad English. >> >> Actually, it seems fairly good to me. Anybody who can understand, let >> alone come up with, a username like yours, obviously has a pretty good >> grasp of it. :-) >> >> > In my opinion, theoretically, we *can* make the Internet uncensorable, >> >> In the large, it already essentially is. Find one tiny little >> pinhole, through which to leak something to somewhere free, and it >> cannot be erased from the net as a whole. (Note that said pinhole >> need not be via the net! Leak it on paper in a bottle, and someone >> might find it and post it to the net.) Anything from reports of >> power-embarassing events, to the old goatse pix, are still available >> SOMEwhere. >> >> > The TL;DR answer is FEC algorithms. >> >> Hmmm, interesting. I'm not an info-theory wonk, but at first blush, >> late on a Friday evening, this sounds plausible, to me. As Stephane >> points out, some of it is already popular. It sounds like you want to >> combine the diverse routing of BitTorrent (and ToR?), with some >> steganography ("debris nobody will notice", possibly in non-user >> data), and FEC to account for the possibility of some data being >> blocked or altered. >> >> What "prior art" research have you done? What did you find, and why >> wasn't it suitable? What do you see as the already available building >> blocks, or concepts to extend? >> >> -Dave >> >> -- >> Dave Aronson - Have Pun, Will Babble | Work: davearonson.com | /\ ASCII >> -------------------------------------+ Play: davearonson.net | \/ Ribbon >> "Specialization is for insects." | Life: dare2xl.com | /\ Campaign >> -Robert A. Heinlein | Wife: nasjleti.net | Email<>Web >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf