Just because something is hierarchical doesn’t make it centralized. The backbone network at it’s core is a mesh network owned by many organizations. The other layers are also split between multiple countries, organizations, and physical hardware. There is no single point of failure here.
Even DNS isn’t really centralized. The servers are still spread across the world even if they are run by one organization. I don’t think this is actually a technology problem at all, but an organizational and political one. If the US can make ICANN do whatever then we need to put limits on the power of the US. Going from one organization to several makes no difference if they all can be cajoled by world governments. Even if that didn’t happen national and ISP level blocks can be put in place like those in China and across the world. This is going to sound corny but the actual solution here must involve reform or revolution.
Hierarchical systems are inherently centralized around points of failure, even if the controlling entity uses multiple servers. Like you said, going from one organization to several makes no difference if they all can still be cajoled by goverments.
Putting limits on the power of the US, so that we can have free speech to organize a revolution, might be a chicken and egg sort of problem. Under our current system we won’t put any sort of limits on the people in charge. I don’t think it’s realistic to hope this will change until after we do something else within our power.
I’m arguing that we ought to replace ISPs as well, in order to prevent them from being able to implement ISP-level blocks too. Most people only have one choice.
Several organizations (polycentric) isn’t as resilient as fully p2p (decentralized), but it’s a step in the right direction. There are already darknet drug markets that have been running for years, but only with .onion addresses.
Even if it’s polycentric or whatever the term is it’s still considered a mesh network.
I’m arguing that we ought to replace ISPs as well, in order to prevent them from being able to implement ISP-level blocks too. Most people only have one choice.
I am not against replacing ISPs if it means better cheaper internet or more control. I haven’t seen any of these projects actually replacing ISPs yet though. Instead everything seems to be a layer on top of the existing Internet (including Tor and I2P). Not that this is a bad thing by any means but it’s not quite the same thing. Maybe these kinds of projects like CJDNS could replace the current infrastructure one day, but I don’t think that’s been demonstrated yet.
To be honest I think the current protocols and approaches would probably work fine for replacing ISPs. Anybody can buy 5G hardware, setup routers and BGP, much of the technology is open source and certainly all of the base standards are open access. Actually purchasing and setting up the infrastructure would probably be a bigger barrier than getting the right technology if that makes sense. Mesh networking is standardized too.
Sorry if I’m following this poorly, what exactly is still considered a mesh network? I thought a requirement of mesh networks was that they were non-hierarchical.
Do we still disagree about DNS being centralized? I don’t understand how “we” can put limits on American abuse (like those two examples) before a revolution, without switching to p2p alternatives.
Just because something is hierarchical doesn’t make it centralized. The backbone network at it’s core is a mesh network owned by many organizations. The other layers are also split between multiple countries, organizations, and physical hardware. There is no single point of failure here.
Even DNS isn’t really centralized. The servers are still spread across the world even if they are run by one organization. I don’t think this is actually a technology problem at all, but an organizational and political one. If the US can make ICANN do whatever then we need to put limits on the power of the US. Going from one organization to several makes no difference if they all can be cajoled by world governments. Even if that didn’t happen national and ISP level blocks can be put in place like those in China and across the world. This is going to sound corny but the actual solution here must involve reform or revolution.
Hierarchical systems are inherently centralized around points of failure, even if the controlling entity uses multiple servers. Like you said, going from one organization to several makes no difference if they all can still be cajoled by goverments.
Putting limits on the power of the US, so that we can have free speech to organize a revolution, might be a chicken and egg sort of problem. Under our current system we won’t put any sort of limits on the people in charge. I don’t think it’s realistic to hope this will change until after we do something else within our power.
I’m arguing that we ought to replace ISPs as well, in order to prevent them from being able to implement ISP-level blocks too. Most people only have one choice.
Several organizations (polycentric) isn’t as resilient as fully p2p (decentralized), but it’s a step in the right direction. There are already darknet drug markets that have been running for years, but only with .onion addresses.
Even if it’s polycentric or whatever the term is it’s still considered a mesh network.
I am not against replacing ISPs if it means better cheaper internet or more control. I haven’t seen any of these projects actually replacing ISPs yet though. Instead everything seems to be a layer on top of the existing Internet (including Tor and I2P). Not that this is a bad thing by any means but it’s not quite the same thing. Maybe these kinds of projects like CJDNS could replace the current infrastructure one day, but I don’t think that’s been demonstrated yet.
To be honest I think the current protocols and approaches would probably work fine for replacing ISPs. Anybody can buy 5G hardware, setup routers and BGP, much of the technology is open source and certainly all of the base standards are open access. Actually purchasing and setting up the infrastructure would probably be a bigger barrier than getting the right technology if that makes sense. Mesh networking is standardized too.
Sorry if I’m following this poorly, what exactly is still considered a mesh network? I thought a requirement of mesh networks was that they were non-hierarchical.
Do we still disagree about DNS being centralized? I don’t understand how “we” can put limits on American abuse (like those two examples) before a revolution, without switching to p2p alternatives.