It's not just optimization.  We have serious restrictions on what type of content can be moved over our RF links.  Everyone who runs a device that transmits is responsible for its operation.  Luckily there is precedent here since each node can be considered the same as a "digital packet repeater" in historical context.  In those cases, the repeater operator is not held liable for illegal content relayed through them as long as they take "reasonable measures" to limit it and when discovered, stop it.

While it's not preferable to get into the distributed firewall business, it may be necessary if this network carries traffic to or from the internet.  If we had another "reasonable" way to make sure only licensed hams were able to originate content on the network, firewalls likely wouldn't be needed.

In a somewhat related issue, there is also precedent for hams using encrypted WiFi links with part 97 rules.  Supposedly, it's only acceptable to encrypt when the purpose is not to hide the content of your message.  This means that it's okay to run encryption as long you publish the decryption keys so that they could be found by the public (negating the point of using encryption in most cases).

The frequencies that we're allowed to use as licensed radio amateurs belong to the public and we're allowed to use them for the purposes of experimentation and communication with other amateurs.  In order to assure the fair use of such a valuable resource, we have to follow strict rules that prevent commercial interests from taking over.  That's why we're not allowed to conduct business on the air or communicate with the general public (broadcast).  That's also why it's important that anything transmitted is not intentionally obfuscated from anyone else's ability to view it.

As a long-time computer engineer with a strong emphasis on security, the idea of having such an open network is very scary to me.  However, it's also why I'm excited about the challenge.  When most people think about security, they only think about secrecy (hiding your messages).  However, security also includes authentication (making sure messages really come from the intended sender) and integrity (has this message been altered in transit).  With those two aspects and a lot of help from public key cryptography, my hope is to contribute to making a network that is both open *and* secure.

I've already made some strides in this area for other ham-related projects of mine, and now I'm hoping to translate that to the needs of the overall network.





On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Bart Kus <me@bartk.us> wrote:
It's just a little more efficient to stop unwanted traffic early, before it takes up a bunch of airtime.  Just an optimization, which may not be worth the complexity right up front.  Your suggestion works too.

--Bart


On 2/19/2013 8:46 PM, Benjamin Krueger wrote:
Just saw this, "just needs to push an ACL update". Why can't we just route all traffic and let the client nodes run their own firewalls? We *really* don't want to be in the distributed firewall business. :)


On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Bart Kus <me@bartk.us> wrote:
Global reachability is not in conflict with autonomy.  Achieving both simultaneously just requires careful design of HamWAN network services.  If the HamWAN internet feed drops off, the routing, DNS and other services need to continue working.  The first word in ASN is Autonomous after all. :)

I consider NAT and Proxies as old crusty hacks from the age of ISPs giving out just 1 IP/customer.  It's time to put these ideas to rest.  IPv6 will do this on the commercial internet in the coming years, and AMPRnet will allow us to do it immediately here.  For the cases where communication is to be restricted due to user preference, we can push filtering rules to firewalls at the edges of the network, and at the HamWAN <-> user site interface.  In short, firewalls: yes, nat+gateways: no.

If a user wants to make a service running on one of his servers public, he just needs to push an ACL update to HamWAN and it'll be opened up.  No need to re-IP, update DNS, change NICs, whatever else.  And most importantly, it makes everyone equal.  Your subnet allocation has the same powers as mine.  There is no special ground to fight over, such as space on a public subnet, or access to some officially sanctioned gateway servers that are allowed to do special things.

If you want though, you can of course live in the world of private IPs and NAT.  Just configure your LAN router that way.

Complete freedom of configuration.  This is the way the internet should have evolved for geeks!

--Bart



On 2/13/2013 8:30 AM, Cory (NQ1E) wrote:
Unless I've misunderstood the point of this network all together, there shouldn't be a case where we want the entire network address space to be reachable from the global internet.  It's much more likely that the network will remain as autonomous as possible and any connections to the internet will be for connecting specific services through a gateway of some sort.

A subnet of at least /23 (typical minimum for global BGP announcements) should be reserved for the purpose of being globally routable in the future, if/when HamWAN decides to peer with one or more ISPs.  An address in the /23 can be given to each service gateway for connecting to the internet.

The rest of the 44-net allocation can be treated as private address space, except that it's essentially guaranteed not to cause conflicts with the user-level networks since it's still globally unique.



On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 2:28 AM, Bart Kus <me@bartk.us> wrote:
Clever ;)

What if HamWAN switches ISPs?  All that IPv6 space would need to be given up.  It can't follow you AFAIK.  Or the ISP may charge whatever they feel like to let you take it with you.  Also bad.

The fees for IPv6 are not as low as I had hoped, but not as high as you think either!  There's a 25% discount in effect for "extra-small" allocations (which are still larger than the entire IPv4 internet).  The cost looks to be $937.50/yr.  Not sure it's worth the cost, given the IPv4 AMPRnet situation.  We can very likely just expand our AMPRnet allocation if we out-grow the /20.

--Bart



On 2/13/2013 1:10 AM, Cory (NQ1E) wrote:
Here's an IPv6 allocation for you ;)


With the obvious exception of AMPRNet addresses for amateur radio use, IP allocations should come from an ISP.  Obtaining a direct allocation from ARIN would cost around a couple grand per year.


On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:46 AM, Bart Kus <me@bartk.us> wrote:
Result: APPROVED
Your allocated subnet is: 44.24.240.0 / 20

https://portal.ampr.org/networks.php?a=region&id=191

HamWAN now has 4096 real Internet IPs to play with.  Next up: we gotta crack the mystery of getting IPv6 net space.  Any volunteers? :)

What an incredibly productive day,

--Bart


_______________________________________________
PSDR mailing list
PSDR@hamwan.org
http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org



_______________________________________________
PSDR mailing list
PSDR@hamwan.org
http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org


_______________________________________________
PSDR mailing list
PSDR@hamwan.org
http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org




_______________________________________________
PSDR mailing list
PSDR@hamwan.org
http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org


_______________________________________________
PSDR mailing list
PSDR@hamwan.org
http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org




--
Benjamin


_______________________________________________
PSDR mailing list
PSDR@hamwan.org
http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org


_______________________________________________
PSDR mailing list
PSDR@hamwan.org
http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org