[HN Gopher] IPv8: Authenticated Private P2P Communication
___________________________________________________________________
IPv8: Authenticated Private P2P Communication
Author : WillDaSilva
Score : 48 points
Date : 2021-02-23 19:50 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| crypt0x wrote:
| The docs could benefit from a comparison against other existing
| projects, like cjdns, i2p or zeronet which all have "slightly"
| different trade offs.
| darkhelmet wrote:
| It's not even the first IPv8. There was an IPv8 doing the rounds
| in the late 1990's for a while. I had some trouble finding
| references, but I think this is the sanitized version:
| https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-terrell-ip-spec-ipv7-ipv8-... I
| have fond memories of reading about how stargates, galaxy routers
| etc, etc were going to solve all our problems. The IPv8 in the
| link is a far more pedestrian read.
| sarnowski wrote:
| Sounds like I2P[0]; what are the differences?
|
| [0] https://geti2p.net/en/about/intro
| pythonaut_16 wrote:
| Calling this IPv8 seems pretty irresponsible when it is not an
| IETF standard in any way.
| omginternets wrote:
| This, along with the lack of an RFC (see my top-level comment)
| seals my judgement of this project as mere content marketing.
|
| IMHO, the libp2p specifications [0] are much more interesting.
|
| [0] https://libp2p.io/
| ACAVJW4H wrote:
| Like calling your own totally independent and unrelated
| implementation of a neural network yolo.v5 This is just
| clickbait.
| imoverclocked wrote:
| So much this. Please don't call this IP. We already have an
| Internet Protocol and this project seems to work as a layer on
| top of it, much like a P2P-VPN.
| abvdasker wrote:
| I find it funny and irreverent. There probably never will be an
| IPv8 so there's no need to worry about a naming conflict.
| wyldfire wrote:
| I'm all for funny names but this one seems like it would just
| cause more confusion than it's worth. The fact that they list
| it as the sole FAQ probably means that many folks have been
| confused.
|
| I hereby request that they change the project name to one of
| the not-too-perilous-but-frequently-selected-references-to-
| Monty-Python for a very silly name indeed.
| bawolff wrote:
| Trying to ignore the name issue, what even is this? The security
| goals are totally unstated, the network routability goals are
| unstated. I dont see any links to an actual project objective.
|
| It sounds like an encrypted overlay network over the internet.
| Does it even aim to provide anonyminity? Is it just an
| abstraction over network addresses to replace DNS and do NAT
| hole-punching? Something else? What even is the goal here?
| swiley wrote:
| How is this different from TOR?
| jaytaylor wrote:
| I've been playing around with ipv8 recently (just for DS fun),
| and it definitely can work and is pretty cool. Unfortunate that
| it's currently Python-only, and the examples really lacked depth
| / practical coverage.
|
| Biggest complaint: The wire object serialization for messages was
| a major PITA and I ended up resorting to packing everything into
| a single JSON-encoded string.
|
| On the topic of distributed secure networks, I've continued on to
| combing through 0x-mesh, which is compelling to me because it's
| go and they've reused other open source libs as much as possible.
| A neatt approach with some higher level facilities compared to
| ipv8.
|
| https://github.com/0xProject/0x-mesh
| c7DJTLrn wrote:
| This caught my attention since I've been interested in a rethink
| of Tor for a long time.
|
| I'm a bit confused about this claim:
|
| >No infrastructure dependency
|
| How is this possible? To pierce NAT you need a rendezvous server
| at the least.
| infogulch wrote:
| I2P?
| gtirloni wrote:
| UPnP-IGD
| jlokier wrote:
| If you can discover a peer who is willing to help and not
| behind NAT, they can act as your rendezvous server, and either
| relay traffic, help with NAT traversal, or help you find
| another peer that might help instead.
|
| Skype did something like this when it first came out.
| c7DJTLrn wrote:
| You'd need to scan for random hosts on the Internet and hope
| they're running a client to do that, no?
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| Even BitTorrent's DHT requires somewhat hardcoded IPs for
| nodes to assist in bootstraping IIRC.
| ehutch79 wrote:
| Can we flag github projects as having spam names?
| nashashmi wrote:
| Do we really need a separate IP-based protocol? I was thinking a
| protocol parallel to hyper-text transfer like https but upgraded
| with the features being proposed here.
| federona wrote:
| Seems like an Android client and a distributed key value store
| with phone numbers tied to public keys is all you would need and
| probably an erlang app like that written for Whatsapp back in the
| day to build something useful from this.
| bawolff wrote:
| Stealing someone else's name is pretty obnoxious
| omginternets wrote:
| Is there a spec somewhere?
|
| This kind of thing really benefits from a clear explanation of
| how it works.
| loup-vaillant wrote:
| Came here to say this. The Libsodium dependency suggests
| they're using bog standard cryptography that should be easy to
| implement in a gazillion contexts (which is great). But we do
| need a spec so independent implementations can arise.
|
| That being said, https://py-
| ipv8.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reference/serializa... seems to
| provide at least part of what we need.
| sumtechguy wrote:
| Yeah I think RFC format would be more ideal?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-23 23:03 UTC)