Portzamparc
2010/3/27 MtFBwU <may.4thbwu@xxxxxxxxx>
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> Haha, very true indeed. Now let me tell you a real story
>> need complicated protocols to workaround it, just using synonyms
>> or euphemisms would suffice.
> 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.
>> You see, the G.F.W is in fact, under a lot of pressure. Evidence shows that
>> 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.
> 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
>> I am very sorry, I know IETF is a place where people discuss technical
>> 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?
> 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
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf