[HN Gopher] The Iran Firewall: A preliminary report
___________________________________________________________________
The Iran Firewall: A preliminary report
Author : chmaynard
Score : 169 points
Date : 2022-10-28 13:27 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.thc.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.thc.org)
| LastTrain wrote:
| I almost stopped reading at "neo-liberal", man that term is
| getting boring, especially when used in non-sequitur fashion like
| "The most severe disruption is when the regime turns off all cell
| towers and all local Internet. They just pull the plug and it's
| game over for any neo-liberal smart-arse that thinks
| v2ray/tor/shadowsocks is the solution". WTF does that even mean?
| What does the author think it means?
| spamizbad wrote:
| I think the author is suggesting global capitalism is effete
| when it comes to combating state-sponsored censorship.... which
| I think is true.
| LastTrain wrote:
| The most generous interpretation so far, but the bar is low.
| To accept that applies here is to accept that what is going
| on in Iran right now is entirely being orchestrated by
| outside forces and the citizen protesters have no agency. I'm
| familiar with this worldview, and I know the ilk that spread
| it.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| I'm a liberal by most definitions but I didn't reject a decent
| technical article by presumably an advocate of political
| freedom in Iran because of my sensitive sensibility.
| LastTrain wrote:
| Did your sensibilities keep you from reading the rest of my
| comment? Sadly, it didn't keep me from reading the article -
| which had no interesting information on the GFI in particular
| or even firewalls in general. I should have went with my gut
| on this one.
| dmos62 wrote:
| > What does the author think it means?
|
| A detestable person that thinks he can circumvent the regime?
| Presumably a paleo-conservative (or whatever the opposite of
| neo-liberal is in the mind of the blogger) would not be so
| naive and would look at real "solutions", as opposed to the
| neo-liberal, who is interested in non-solutions.
|
| Pretty awful ideas floating around in this guy's head.
| [deleted]
| dmix wrote:
| I'm not sure what he means by that. Is it just a tongue-in-
| cheek description for the opposition to the Iranian party? Is
| it used by the party to describe pro-western people locally? Or
| is this just another overused Redditism?
| LastTrain wrote:
| It is a play on neo-con, which is a term that was used to
| great affect in American conservative political circles to
| ostracize those who would cooperate with the opposition party
| - a.k.a. moderates. It is now used with similar goals by the
| American far left (to the extent that such a thing exists..).
| Both terms are often coopted by the the opposition party to
| demonize moderate counterparts.
|
| That said, it sounds cool to mouth-breathers so they often
| use it completely out of context, like this author did.
| xhevahir wrote:
| That sense of "neoliberal" is peculiar to American
| politics, as far as I can tell. I'd say it's more likely
| the blogger means a person who wants free trade,
| deregulation, etc.
| LastTrain wrote:
| I would say, given the sum total output we've seen by the
| author (a blog with two articles), they have no idea what
| it means, other than a vague sense that it is some kind
| of sick burn. [Edit - look, I know the term has an
| academic origin, but we aren't discussing academic
| papers, I'm talking about how it is abused everyday in
| the vernacular]
| hot_gril wrote:
| I've heard neocon many times, always in a different
| context. As far as I'm concerned, the word has no meaning.
| xhevahir wrote:
| I don't see how it's any less meaningful than "liberal,"
| or "conservative." Each of these terms labels a set of
| family resemblances and is dependent on context.
| hot_gril wrote:
| "Liberal" is at least a really imprecise synonym for
| Democrat party in the US, ditto for "conservative" and
| Republican.
| pvg wrote:
| _Please don 't pick the most provocative thing in an article or
| post to complain about in the thread. Find something
| interesting to respond to instead._
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Eh, I don't like neo-liberal either, but its usage here made me
| chuckle. I'm probably a "neo-liberal" since I generally believe
| in human rights (including free speech) and also that
| capitalism (for all its faults) has a dramatically better track
| record than socialism or communism.
| didibus wrote:
| I was super confused by the authors use of neoliberal and I'm
| also confused by how you use the term.
|
| A liberal is someone who values individual freedoms and human
| rights.
|
| A neoliberal is someone who values deregulated economy,
| privatization of all things, free markets, free trade, and
| open economic borders.
|
| The Iranian regime would be a conservative one, where they
| value limited social rights that favor some social morals
| over the individuals own, like what women/men can and can't
| do, what you can and can't eat, what you can and can't drink,
| what you can and can't teach or believe in, etc.
|
| The Iranian economic model is a mixed bag, kind of a social-
| caputalist mix, with lots of state owned and managed
| enterprise, but also allowing private ones. That said it
| comes with a lot of regulations to have them enforce the
| conservative social norms.
| eternalban wrote:
| The Iranian regime classifies enemies ("counter
| revolutionaries" in the old days). We have the hypocrites
| "MEK", monarchists, a newly minted "meddlesome Shia" (mainly
| Iraqis but basically any Shia who disagrees Khamenei is God's
| Shadow on earth smh), and westernized youth "neo-liberals". So
| OP's sentence makes perfect sense actually.
|
| p.s.
|
| Basically the occupation theocratic regime of IR positions
| itself in its _propaganda to demoralize_ Iranian resistance by
| prophecies of doom and gloom for Iran should it be cured of the
| IR disease: there is ISIS or Daesh [or "it will Syria 2.0"]
| (aka terror); there is that crafty prince in KSA that wants
| Iran to parition; there is the crafty sultan in Turkie (sic)
| that has pan turk on his mind; and should the country remain
| intact let there be no doubt that "neo-liberals" will do a
| Greece or whatever to Iran.
| technoooooost wrote:
| Pretty sure he's joking around using iran's regime terms to
| describe its dissidents
| hot_gril wrote:
| The top says this, which doesn't sound like a joke.
|
| > The Internet is easily censored. The neo-liberals got their
| arses kicked. The big players like Google/Apple/AWS are
| partly to blame. China runs the GFI as a service.
| killjoywashere wrote:
| The point is the neo-liberals of Silicon Valley, who
| essentially adopt a policy of splendid isolation, have
| failed to protect democracy.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| Since when was their job to protect democracy?
| killjoywashere wrote:
| Since they claim US citizenship. Citizenship is a bit
| more than your token to ride the bus.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| Since the basis of their entire project [1] was given to
| them as the output of an obscure DARPA project ostensibly
| aimed at securing democracy in the world. It's not
| written into a contract, just a sorta "moral obligation"
| to, you know... not shit on the values of the people who
| put you where you are.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet
| hot_gril wrote:
| I agree that it's their job, I don't agree that they've
| adopted a policy of isolation, but whatever. It's just
| not a good way to start a tech article.
|
| The author mentioned some of the blocking methods, so
| that's cool.
| ogurechny wrote:
| It's just a media-friendly way to call people who believe that
| money doesn't stink, and that to each what he deserves. Which
| is true for most "successful" corporate functionaries whose
| exuberance naturally depends on that same tight control over
| user devices.
| Roark66 wrote:
| You know what is crazy. I recently heard 20% of adult population
| in Iran is in Revolutionary Guard. This puts things into context
| for anyone who says "why don't people just overthrow the
| dictatorship". However, there were dictatorships with an even
| stronger hold on their population that fell. Usually for economic
| reasons. I hope Iran's regime will follow.
| blacksmith_tb wrote:
| Hmm, that seems way too high? They're a branch of the
| military[1], which is the biggest standing army in the Middle
| East, but even the whole army comes to about a million for a
| country of 86M.
|
| 1:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Revolutionary_Guard_Co...
| ghostpepper wrote:
| "All blacklisted domains resolve to 10.0.34.35"
|
| I guess this would require everyone to use a government-
| sanctioned DNS and that would require traffic on udp 53 to non-
| gov-dns servers blocked? I felt like this was glossed over a bit
| too quickly in the article
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| DNS is running on udp/53. It's beyond trivial to absolutely
| transparently NAT it to anything you want.
|
| Block tcp/853 and most common public DNS servers and you can
| control resolving on 98% of devices.
| vel0city wrote:
| Probably more like all the local ISPs DNS servers resolve that,
| or that there's potentially some DNS rewriting going on. Its
| not too hard to rewrite basic DNS traffic. DNS is not
| encrypted, its payloads are very structured, and quite small.
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| More like the whole country is behind a giant CGNAT. NAT is
| good for security, eh?
| whatsthatabout wrote:
| Pretty crazy that a country can just completely block all
| internet outside of what they want to be accessible... One app
| that came to my mind reading this is Briar [1] - no real internet
| required, can connect to other briar participants via bluetooth
| and WiFi. Sadly only for Android...
|
| [1] https://briarproject.org
| Thaxll wrote:
| It's not crazy, internet is like public roads, they can decide
| to close them anytime they want.
| culi wrote:
| Who's "they" and why are we paying to uphold their power to
| make this decision whenever they want
| vkou wrote:
| We aren't doing anything, The Iranian government chooses to
| control what happens to electricity within their borders.
| It's one of the fundamental points of state sovereignty.
| culi wrote:
| The example given was "public roads"
| vbezhenar wrote:
| Why would I want to connect to other briar participants? I want
| to connect to hacker news. It might be useful for terrorists or
| protesters, but for ordinary people - not sure.
| pyinstallwoes wrote:
| The only real solution long-term is completely peer-to-peer ad-
| hoc networking that doesn't depend on BGP.
|
| A few projects are in similar territory but none I've seen are
| working at the layer of bypassing BGP. Many are just acting as an
| overlay; which works to an extent. https://github.com/yggdrasil-
| network/yggdrasil-go
|
| It's probably begging for a different model of the "internet" and
| where data lives.
|
| My requirements:
|
| 1. Offline-first applications that sync via a pub/sub DHT of
| trusted peers. More details here but basically allows bypassing
| BGP.
|
| 2. Trusted peers are routable via a determinstic pathing algoritm
| without exposing the recipient. (content addressable everything).
|
| 3. Automatically distribute storage and compute on all local
| devices a user has and or needs (it's so dumb and wasteful that I
| only use one computer at a time when I have hundreds at my home
| at different levels of compute from thermostat to fridge to
| laptop to desktop).
|
| I've thought about this for a long time and planned many
| requirements out. I was very committed to working on it but then
| I lost motivation because I don't get along with most humans
| today and where the world seems to be going. It also sucks to
| have people think your ideas are crazy.
|
| Oh well.
| meitham wrote:
| I recollect few years ago when the US ordered all western
| services to be blocked to Iranian citizens, it was a big outcry
| when Gitlab and Github published blogs confirming their
| implementation of the Iran blockade. To me the west lost all
| moral arguments criticizing Iran for doing the same within their
| own country.
| arcticbull wrote:
| One is used as punishment to correct behavior, one as control.
|
| [edit] This is the same way that if I go out and throw someone
| into my basement it's 'kidnapping' but when the police do it to
| me, it's an arrest.
|
| Jokingly this comment has the same vibes. [1]
|
| [1]
| https://twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312?s=20&t=gD...
| thiagoharry wrote:
| Its good to be the self-proclaimed global policeman.
| arcticbull wrote:
| I don't think anyone's a self-proclaimed global policeman,
| and America has become of late increasingly reluctant to
| extend their influence. I'm not American. My personal
| position is that the world would be worse off if America
| were to cede their influence because the vacuum would be
| filled by China, Russia or both. These forces all keep each
| other in balance and maintain the current detente.
|
| This is one of the most peaceful times in world history,
| after all.
|
| With that in mind, no, I don't support the Iranian regime.
| Positions should be evaluated piecemeal, it doesn't matter
| what you think about America's other positions, it doesn't
| need your personal 'moral high-ground' sign-off to be in
| the right on this one.
| [deleted]
| DeathArrow wrote:
| And it's not like the West isn't blocking sites and even taking
| down sites that aren't breaking the law.
| [deleted]
| johnklos wrote:
| This is difficult to read. The author confuses nouns and proper
| nouns and isn't clear about who it is they're referring to (who
| are the neo-liberals, for instance?).
|
| I understand that not everyone is as good at writing as others,
| but it really doesn't take much effort to ask someone to
| proofread.
|
| Otherwise, this is a good start, even though it lacks details and
| examples.
| deusum wrote:
| Conceptually, it was interesting. I can forgive it for lacking
| details, as a "preliminary report", too.
|
| But the whole, "neo-liberal arses" bit gave it the sense of an
| unhinged author or untrustworthy narrator.
| LastTrain wrote:
| Conceptually, I clicked it and thought I would learn
| something about the Iranian firewall, but instead I ended up
| at "The Hackers Choice" blog, a blog with exactly two
| articles, and read a confusing rant along with a laundry list
| of firewall techniques talked about in vague enough terms
| that I learned absolutely nothing, other than to be skeptical
| about this source going forward.
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| English isn't the writers first language, for a start.
|
| The weird use of the term neoliberal is pretty common in
| European liberal-as-in-freedom left leaning circles.
| rocketbop wrote:
| I've lived in three European countries including the one I
| was born in and I've never heard that term being used in that
| way.
| computerfriend wrote:
| I have never heard the term "neoliberal" outside of US
| politics.
| neither_color wrote:
| _On bad days:_
|
| Key word is bad days. Expats in China have noticed the same
| thing, with VPNs sporadically not working during summits, around
| certain holidays, etc but resuming afterwards. Also, for some
| reason certain VPNs work more consistently than others even
| though they use the same protocols as blocked services. Some
| speculate that the ones that continue to work are either
| honeypots or the companies behind them have (social) connections
|
| Also, it's kind of poor taste to call those who want free(dom)
| internet there as "neo liberals"
| computerfriend wrote:
| > but resuming afterwards.
|
| This is a common and natural misconception. When the firewall
| gains a feature (i.e. the ability to block certain traffic) the
| VPN providers then have to figure out some technique to bypass
| it. This happens over and over again. The firewall isn't
| relaxing after the event, it is staying the same and the VPN
| provider has improved.
|
| On your second point, I can't comment for all providers, but
| I've heard this rumour in a more specific context and can say
| that it is definitely at least sometimes false.
| neither_color wrote:
| Thanks for clarifying. I admit it's anecdotal but was
| wondering if these new features are rolled out automatically
| or with humans deploying them? If the latter it might explain
| why expats in China have said it [access to VPNs] gets worse
| at times.
|
| Years ago one provider that rhymes with krill was pretty
| consistent, but in the end it seemed one could get the most
| mileage(err uptime) by rolling their own v2ray instances on a
| VPS provider that had "Hong Kong" servers in Hangzhou.
| another_story wrote:
| I'm not sure this is entirely the case, though probably
| partly so. I think they do track known VPN servers and closer
| to congress sessions cut those off. I had a number of self
| hosted setups that would get cut off at those times only to
| come back on later.
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| Neoliberal is usually used as a pejorative towards "liberals"
| who prioritise economic growth/profit over human
| dignity/freedom. Think: the Blair administration in the UK.
| dontbenebby wrote:
| >Also, it's kind of poor taste to call those who want free(dom)
| internet there as "neo liberals"
|
| Thanks, sincerely, for the note on language. I've used that
| insult a lot in the past.
|
| I also had a string of international students do things like
| complain I was racist for asking questions and answers be
| repeated back in English, not just Mandarin. (And they weren't
| from Taiwan.)
|
| It's true that America has no official language, but when folks
| like myself expressed that sentiment in the policy space, it
| was with the intent if someone speaks French, Spanish, or one
| of the many languages of the Native Americans could be given
| services in a manner they understad, as is their human right.
|
| It was not a rhetorical devie meant to me wielded by agents of
| a foreign power.
|
| I ended up accepting an alaprazolam script, following a string
| of failed antidepressants, navigating the social mileau of
| "they treat me like an international student because I know who
| the spies are and refuse to just... hire me somewhere... as
| their system crashes around them"
|
| This was in the lead up to, and during, the Summer of Snowden
| -- I was really pissed that no one would hire me into private
| industry and civil society... well all I can say about so
| called "civil" society is Epstein didn't kill himself.
|
| (Happy spooky season!)
| gbarut wrote:
| Somebody should post this to Google contacts. They just had this
| claims about security and working for the ppl with the Hacking
| Google series on yt.
| arbitrage wrote:
| Google knows already. They just don't care.
| [deleted]
| throwaway0x7E6 wrote:
| >Some operators use a whitelist and block all other websites.
|
| the ultimate fate of the internet
| [deleted]
| buzzwords wrote:
| I tried helping my Iranian friend to get around the internet
| restrictions. I have to agree with the author most big players
| could not give a flying f*ck. Even signal can't be bothered to
| address verification SMS issue.
| [deleted]
| hot_gril wrote:
| > Instead, the TCP 3-way handshake won't complete (the syn-ack is
| dropped).
|
| Sounds like my internet connection in grad student housing about
| 10% of the time, except the initial SYN is dropped. Pings and
| everything else are fine.
| ilyt wrote:
| I remember one guy in my company had hard-on on blocking every
| way to tunnel out of our network (...that was not required by
| anyone, he was just security nut).
|
| We had sites blacking out because he decided DNS tunnelling bad
| so he blocked anything with low TTL. Meanwhile simple POC DNS
| tunnel worked fine..
| keyme wrote:
| Air dropping starlink terminals onto protesters is the solution.
|
| In fact, if you live anywhere outside of the US, owning one "just
| in case" is good for future proofing your freedom, IMHO. Kind of
| like being armed.
|
| Edit: in fact, starlink v2 global LTE-from-space coverage will be
| a true game changer for world freedom. We can only hope this
| comes to be sooner rather than later.
| missedthecue wrote:
| Until having a starlink terminal on your roof becomes
| punishable by death. You can try to hide them visually, but
| Iran could always detect them electronically if they want to
| put in the effort.
| keyme wrote:
| Half the households in Iran have an illegal satellite dish on
| the roof to receive disallowed TV from abroad.
|
| This is punishable and does get punished (rarely, I hear).
| Doesn't deter anyone.
|
| Edit: it will also be quite difficult to detect
| electronically, judging by the fact that even Russia fails to
| jam these signals on the battlefield.
| modeless wrote:
| Satellite TV dishes don't transmit. Jamming and detection
| are very different.
| keyme wrote:
| TV dishes transmit very clearly in the visible light
| spectrum :)
|
| As for TX detection, you'd be surprised. Directional
| signals like starlink uplink are fairly hard to detect.
| walrus01 wrote:
| One needs to only google "iran satellite dish
| confiscation" to see the low tech methods used. They
| occasionally go on binges of confiscating and destroying
| receive-only tv satellite dishes.
| keyme wrote:
| Random satellite imagery of Tehran. Count the dishes.
|
| https://www.google.com/maps/@35.738824,51.5285095,19z/dat
| a=!...
| imwillofficial wrote:
| As a submarine comms expert, this is more true than you
| might realize.
| honkler wrote:
| ever heard of antisatellite missiles?
| keyme wrote:
| Unfeasible against SpaceX who have a higher mass to orbit
| capability than the rest of the world combined, soon many
| times over.
| joisig wrote:
| Why only outside of the US?
| lasfter wrote:
| Presumably if there's a problem within the US, Starlink would
| be compromised.
| keyme wrote:
| Indeed. You would need a starlink competitor from another
| jurisdiction to fight US censorship if that comes to be.
| pvg wrote:
| There's a pretty long history of dropping radio transmitters
| for people to use in violently authoritarian environments. Not
| without specialized uses but declaring it 'the solution' seems
| like overpromising things a bit.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| FWIW here [1] is an option that should still work. I would be
| curious to hear from people in Iran if this no longer works and
| they are blocking SSH to VPS nodes.
|
| [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33025954
| dweekly wrote:
| The snooping of unencrypted SNI in the TLS handshake is a known
| weakness that is still mostly unresolved despite four years of
| standardization effort. The encrypted SNI work has been revised
| and updated to encrypted ClientHello and is still technically an
| IETF draft and not yet formalized in an RFC:
|
| https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-esni/
|
| That said, CloudFlare, Firefox, and Chromium teams have all been
| working toward the evolving spec so one can hope that soon with
| eCH and DNS-over-HTTPS we will be able to have clients securely
| connect to servers without broadcasting the hostname to which
| they are connecting.
| dweekly wrote:
| Follow along on Chromium support here:
| https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=109140...
| vbezhenar wrote:
| And it means that state firewalls will just block all CDNs.
| novok wrote:
| The idea is you force them to choose the entire effective
| internet or nothing, which is not an economic self own even
| most dictatorships are willing to make.
|
| These firewalls are an exercise in having your cake and
| eating it too.
| saurik wrote:
| But it doesn't end there... they block the CDN that
| implements this feature, and then the CDN's customers--who
| probably didn't care much about the benefits this gives to
| some of their users but are now losing access to some large
| customer base--start complaining and migrating off the CDN,
| which results in the CDN pulling back on the feature.
|
| And we know this is what will happen as this is effectively
| what happened with domain fronting--where you simply use
| the wrong SNI instead of hiding it entirely--with all the
| large CDNs actively "fixing" this feature to prevent their
| customer's websites from being blocked by firewalls because
| of users who were using this to get around hostname
| restrictions.
| aliraheem wrote:
| > which is not an economic self own even most dictatorships
| are willing to make.
|
| What basis do you have for this claim? People make these
| claims constantly so confidently, but wherever I look all I
| see is that dictators have always been willing to make
| their nations incredibly poor.
|
| > These firewalls are an exercise in having your cake and
| eating it too.
|
| More to the point this isn't the Gordian Knot you think it
| is.
|
| HTTPS isn't designed to prevent this. If you want to allow
| 'legitmate' access you just issues your own certs, and
| proxy requests. Universities etc can install your root cert
| and use your DNS servers.
| hnews_account_1 wrote:
| It is game theory. Consider what happens in the real
| world - it is strictly easier for Iran or any country
| with a competent infrastructure to just shut down the big
| internet pipelines for retail customers. They don't do
| that. China has spent untold amounts of money creating a
| stupidly effective surveillance state which is still
| _technically_ open to the internet. Why?
|
| So your assumption that "dictators will do the worst they
| can" is wrong. They will keep pushing the boundary
| outside the current Overton window but can't do it in a
| snap. You force their hand by not providing alternatives
| and suddenly they're stuck. They can't just restrict
| feminist websites and claim that it is harming the social
| fabric then expand the net slowly. It is all or nothing
| as the OP explains.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| CDNs are not entire effective internet.
|
| Also I'm not well-educated in that area, but I would expect
| that CDNs would allocate dedicated IP ranged for big
| customers like Microsoft or Apple. So state can ban more
| selectively, white-listing those ranges.
| aorth wrote:
| Wait I'm confused. I remember reading a bunch of reports about
| how China started blocking TLS 1.3 because of encrypted SNI
| (eSNI) years ago?
| tialaramex wrote:
| Some people interested in the Great Firewall wrote up
| weirdness they saw with one particular prototype of eSNI
| years back. A game of Telephone later this became nonsense
| like "China blocks TLS 1.3" but actually if you do that what
| you get isn't web sites stripped of protection but connection
| errors. Which is indeed what happens for some sites from the
| other side of the Great Firewall, but we just say China
| blocks those sites, because that is what they do. Protocol
| versions are not crucial to them.
|
| The current iteration of ECH is designed to be GREASEd which
| means browsers might just always do ECH with dummy values
| regardless, so either you block or you don't, you won't be
| able to selectively block ECH. This doesn't magically prevent
| the Great Firewall from working but does mean specifically
| host matching is degraded as intended.
| dweekly wrote:
| I don't know anything about that (and I'm pretty sure TLS 1.3
| doesn't mandate ECH since ECH isn't even finished
| standardizing!) but you can check to see if your browser
| supports ECH by visiting https://tls-ech.dev/
| keyme wrote:
| Another idea: create an easy way to set up pirate LTE base
| stations.
|
| Hacked femtocells? SDR? Something more clever?
|
| Distribute eSIMs to everyday people.
|
| The pirate operator takes all the risk and technical
| difficulties.
| walrus01 wrote:
| This doesn't in any way solve the problem of getting traffic
| in/out of the country, where all local ISPs are legally
| obligated to singlehome themselves to the government ASN.
|
| Unless we're talking about something like smuggled two way
| satellite terminals.
| keyme wrote:
| IMHO connectivity to the global internet is less important
| than local communication between protesters in geographic
| proximity.
|
| Having these pirate base stations mesh together is also
| achieveable. Freeing end user equipment from the requirement
| to mesh (not achieveable).
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-28 23:01 UTC)