-- Leo's gemini proxy

-- Connecting to git.thebackupbox.net:1965...

-- Connected

-- Sending request

-- Meta line: 20 text/gemini

repo: resdb
action: commit
revision:
path_from:
revision_from: c3eef8cbb8cc04d143476a96e044e2a02ca0744f:
path_to:
revision_to:

commit c3eef8cbb8cc04d143476a96e044e2a02ca0744f
Author: Nick <nick@somerandomnick.ano>
Date:   Wed Aug 18 20:47:52 2010 +0000

    some updates to a2.o

diff --git a/doc/www.anonet2.org/public_pod/faq.pod b/doc/www.anonet2.org/public_pod/faq.pod

--- a/doc/www.anonet2.org/public_pod/faq.pod
+++ b/doc/www.anonet2.org/public_pod/faq.pod
@@ -28,6 +28,16 @@ space is inappropriate for a public network, per RFC1918.  (If you'd
 like to connect to an internet that uses private address space anyway,
 you may want to try dn42 at L<http://www.dn42.net/>.)

+=item ICANN isn't mismanaging the IPv4-space.  IcannNet usage is just exploding faster than anybody ever predicted.
+
+L<http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/081610-5billion-devices-internet.html>
+claims that the IcannNet only has about 5 billion total devices, of which
+only about 1 billion "regularly connect" (PCs, laptops, etc.).  There are
+plenty of possible addressing schemes that could accomodate a billion
+"regularly connecting" devices with an address space quadruple the size.
+ICANN clearly isn't using any of them.  By any sane technical definition,
+that would certainly qualify as "mismanagement."
+
 =item If you use 1.0.0.0/8, you're squatting on somebody else's resources.

 If you use 1.0.0.0/8 on the IcannNet, then your statement is correct,
@@ -46,14 +56,17 @@ steal it for some "public" network.)

 That last accusation has no logical basis.  Just because most AnoNet
 links are tunneled over the IcannNet doesn't give ICANN a right to rule
-the content of those tunnels.
+the content of those tunnels.  (In almost exactly the same way, just
+because most IcannNet links move over telecom equipment doesn't give the
+ITU a right to rule the content of those links.)  In fact, ICANN itself
+will happily confirm that it has neither authority nor ambition to rule
+the content of IcannNet communications between endpoints, inclusive of
+AnoNet tunnels.  Therefore, even if you buy the logical validity of your
+claim, ICANN will still shoot it down.

 =item You should move to IPv6, then.

-AnoNet has no rules, so you're more than welcome to move to IPv6, and/or
-to try to convince others to do the same.  As long as you don't start
-out with unrealistic expectations, you probably won't be disappointed
-with the results of your preaching effort.
+That's not the only logical conclusion, based on the above.  However, AnoNet has no rules, so you're more than welcome to move to IPv6, and/or to try to convince others to do the same.  As long as you don't start out with unrealistic expectations, you probably won't be disappointed with the results of your preaching effort.  [Update: It appears that IPv6 may have some deployment on AnoNet, now.  (Maybe somebody read the above as a challenge and decided to run with it.)  Perhaps the guys using it will fill in some details here.]

 =back

@@ -165,7 +178,7 @@ etc.), and he'll add them into his own nameservers.
 =item What can I do with my own domain?

 You can host Web pages, an FTP site, IRC, email, an online shop (but
-taking payments may not be simple), or anything else that strikes
+taking payments may not be so simple), or anything else that strikes
 your fancy.

 =back
@@ -243,11 +256,11 @@ sustained growth, while the AnoNet1 population growth is mostly flat.

 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.)
+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 split it.  Such a split doesn't happen simply because "the
+management" hasn't done anything stupid enough to make one necessary.)

 =item Who's "the management" in AnoNet2?  What prevents it from becoming evil when AnoNet2 grows closer to the size of AnoNet1?

@@ -324,7 +337,9 @@ address to anyone on AnoNet2.)

 =item How can I learn more about AnoNet1 vs. AnoNet2?

-L<http://www.anonet2.org/darknet_comparison>
+L<http://www.anonet2.org/darknet_comparison> gives a basic comparison.
+If you want more in-depth information about the relative anonymity value
+of each, L<http://www.anonet2.org/anonymity> may be what you're after.

 =back

diff --git a/doc/www.anonet2.org/public_pod/links.pod b/doc/www.anonet2.org/public_pod/links.pod

--- a/doc/www.anonet2.org/public_pod/links.pod
+++ b/doc/www.anonet2.org/public_pod/links.pod
@@ -4,6 +4,8 @@ Back to homepage - L<http://www.anonet2.org/>

 This is a collection of links that you may find interesting:

+20100818 - L<http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/64074>
+
 20100720 - L<http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2006/05/70886> (thanks L<http://darknet.me/privacy.html>)

 20100518 - L<http://torrentfreak.com/damned-pirates-hollywood-sets-10-billion-box-office-record-091211/>

-- Response ended

-- Page fetched on Sun Jun 2 12:17:47 2024