https://www.electronicdesign.com/technologies/iot/article/21164477/morse-mi cro-whats-the-difference-between-wifi-halow-and-traditional-wifi I bring this up less because i have any plans (I never have plans. Never have the time or capacity to know far enough ahead of time when I WILL have time) or Money to do any of the projects I want, but looking at the theoretical bandwidth limits vs range increase? Look. I live Simi-Rural. Meaning not so far out that you have hundreds of acres for cattle, or farms or whatever. Just an eight acre piece of land that's more of a family hobby project than anything. And yet that is still a fairly sizeable chunk of land so far as traditional wifi is concerned. Fine, HaLow isn't intended to be used for netflix, youtube, etc etc. However you look at all those older protocols, or protocols inspired by those older things (like gemini, or AIM'S OSCAR protocol, etc) and suddenly that ISDN level of bandwidth is looking pretty roomy. Sure it's intended for smart devices, and I genuinely do like that as an option since I can check my phone or theoretically make a terminal device out of a raspberry pi (i lack the skillset and have poor vision so all the fiddly bits are a bit beyond me) to, say, check the status of the hot wire for horses (otherwise you get horses destroying the fence to get to the grass on the other side, or out of pure boredom, or because they find it funny,) send commands to turn on/off the shop/barn lights, check a sensor that's connected to the mailbox to see when it was last opened, state of feed/water levels for animals, etc. I get that a lot of these things are already products and have been for awhile (especially geared for large farms.) I just think something more hobby scale and or something I could build out of maybe fifty bucks worth of parts from your choice in vendor. Back when Egypt's main internet lines were turned off I had this idea of what amounted to personal servers that used sftp or some other protocol for the sake of file sharing, that also had pages and info up for browsing along with a personal message board, mailbox, etc. The main reason I just... never put myself into any projects (aside from lack of knowledge) was that wifi inherently has, from the standpoint of anyone rural, very limited range, thus restricting any sort of mesh to densely packed municipalities, which limits usefulness. Maybe my thinking is too pie in the sky, or 'dude they literally MAKE those stop being daft.' I dunno. I just find the lower end of things interesting given how much wider the net can be cast, especially since this has far better bandwidth than LoRA (as far as i know. Feel free to correct.) I just... both feel out of my depth, and like I should at least toss my two bits into the ring to see if anyone's had similar notions.
On Thu, Dec 02 2021, Andrew Singleton wrote: > Look. I live Simi-Rural. Meaning not so far out that you have hundreds > of acres for cattle, or farms or whatever. Just an eight acre piece of > land that's more of a family hobby project than anything. And yet that > is still a fairly sizeable chunk of land so far as traditional wifi is > concerned. Hi Andrew, I've been interested in these protocols for a long time. I've written some stuff that runs atop LoRA and XBee SX, for instance, including PPP or tun/tap IP/ethernet stacks. HaLow looks like an interesting middle ground; not as long of a range (1km vs 10km) but more easily integrated. I hear you on the LoRA bandwidth. XBee SX is better, and I've seen effective rates of 50Kbps out of the thing. My xbnet program at https://github.com/jgoerzen/xbnet covers running TCP/IP using tun/tap as well as PPP over it at https://github.com/jgoerzen/xbnet/blob/master/doc/xbnet.1.md and I also cover running UUCP over the thing. The XBee SX also has a point-to-point "modem emulation" mode in which it looks behaves like a regular modem to the OS (no translation code necessary). That removes some of the possibilities of direct node-to-node communication, of course, but could, eg, host a number of PPP connections for connectivity. The XBee devices are also interesting for a couple of other reasons. One, is they support a self-assembling mesh in firmware, so you get mesh routing without having to do anything on the software side. Very handy, though of course it reduces available bandwidth. Secondly, they support TX power up to 1W which is what allows them to achieve near-LoRA distance while having a much faster bitrate. However, they are more expensive than LoRA devices, and obviously in the case of the 1W ones, more power-hungry. Since we're talking about old protocols, there is, of course, UUCP. There is a more modern replacement called NNCP that has quite a few nice properties. It is still asynchronous, but it is fully encrypted and authenticated, supports tor-style onion routing and async multicast, and so forth. I have made some blog posts about it and also offer Usenet feeds over NNCP. UUCP or NNCP would be perfect fits for something like this. Another interesting program is Syncthing. Think of it like a serverless Dropbox. It is fully distributed, and every peer in a network can propagate changes. Both Syncthing and NNCP support a "traveler" device -- say a phone that goes to civilization periodically and syncs up things that propagate to/from a remote location. And, there is NNTP, the protocol behind Usenet. Usenet can be exchanged via NNTP, but also via asynchronous means (NNCP, UUCP, etc). It can be done in a very low-bandwidth way and could propagate posts, (small) files, etc. Finally, don't forget email. It can be routed in all sorts of ways, too. I have been writing and coding around some of this stuff. See: https://changelog.complete.org/archives/tag/nncp https://github.com/jgoerzen/nncp-tools https://github.com/jgoerzen/gitsync-nncp/blob/main/gitsync-nncp.org I also have a 5-minute lightning talk video I should get uploaded one of these days... - John
Would be interested in that video ya. Similarly I need to do a proper writeup of the thing I want so i can post to places like this so people can tell me of that exists or not. Dec 2, 2021 2:24:32 PM John Goerzen <jgoerzen at complete.org>: > On Thu, Dec 02 2021, Andrew Singleton wrote: > >> Look. I live Simi-Rural. Meaning not so far out that you have hundreds >> of acres for cattle, or farms or whatever. Just an eight acre piece of >> land that's more of a family hobby project than anything. And yet that >> is still a fairly sizeable chunk of land so far as traditional wifi is >> concerned. > > Hi Andrew, > > I've been interested in these protocols for a long time.? I've written > some stuff that runs atop LoRA and XBee SX, for instance, including PPP > or tun/tap IP/ethernet stacks. > > HaLow looks like an interesting middle ground; not as long of a range > (1km vs 10km) but more easily integrated. > > I hear you on the LoRA bandwidth.? XBee SX is better, and I've seen > effective rates of 50Kbps out of the thing.? My xbnet program at > https://github.com/jgoerzen/xbnet covers running TCP/IP using tun/tap as > well as PPP over it at > https://github.com/jgoerzen/xbnet/blob/master/doc/xbnet.1.md and I also > cover running UUCP over the thing.? The XBee SX also has a > point-to-point "modem emulation" mode in which it looks behaves like a > regular modem to the OS (no translation code necessary).? That removes > some of the possibilities of direct node-to-node communication, of > course, but could, eg, host a number of PPP connections for > connectivity. > > The XBee devices are also interesting for a couple of other reasons. > One, is they support a self-assembling mesh in firmware, so you get mesh > routing without having to do anything on the software side.? Very handy, > though of course it reduces available bandwidth.? Secondly, they support > TX power up to 1W which is what allows them to achieve near-LoRA > distance while having a much faster bitrate.? However, they are more > expensive than LoRA devices, and obviously in the case of the 1W ones, > more power-hungry. > > Since we're talking about old protocols, there is, of course, UUCP. > There is a more modern replacement called NNCP that has quite a few nice > properties.? It is still asynchronous, but it is fully encrypted and > authenticated, supports tor-style onion routing and async multicast, and > so forth.? I have made some blog posts about it and also offer Usenet > feeds over NNCP.? UUCP or NNCP would be perfect fits for something like > this. > > Another interesting program is Syncthing.? Think of it like a serverless > Dropbox.? It is fully distributed, and every peer in a network can > propagate changes. > > Both Syncthing and NNCP support a "traveler" device -- say a phone that > goes to civilization periodically and syncs up things that propagate > to/from a remote location. > > And, there is NNTP, the protocol behind Usenet.? Usenet can be > exchanged via NNTP, but also via asynchronous means (NNCP, UUCP, etc). > It can be done in a very low-bandwidth way and could propagate posts, > (small) files, etc. > > Finally, don't forget email.? It can be routed in all sorts of ways, too. > > I have been writing and coding around some of this stuff.? See: > > https://changelog.complete.org/archives/tag/nncp > https://github.com/jgoerzen/nncp-tools > https://github.com/jgoerzen/gitsync-nncp/blob/main/gitsync-nncp.org > > I also have a 5-minute lightning talk video I should get uploaded one of > these days... > > - John
John Goerzen <jgoerzen at complete.org> writes:
> Since we're talking about old protocols, there is, of course, UUCP.
> There is a more modern replacement called NNCP that has quite a few nice
> properties. It is still asynchronous, but it is fully encrypted and
> authenticated, supports tor-style onion routing and async multicast, and
> so forth. I have made some blog posts about it and also offer Usenet
> feeds over NNCP. UUCP or NNCP would be perfect fits for something like
> this.
Hey, thanks for the writeups on NNCP. I've been interested in NNCP for a
year or two, but haven't actually used it because the existing
documentation isn't very concrete. I am *very* interested in building a
Usenet/post-Usenet feed on top of NNCP, so I'll be reading your writeup
with much interest.
--
Jason McBrayer | ?Strange is the night where black stars rise,
jmcbray at carcosa.net | and strange moons circle through the skies,
| but stranger still is lost Carcosa.?
| ? Robert W. Chambers,The King in Yellow
> John Goerzen <jgoerzen at complete.org> writes: > > Since we're talking about old protocols, there is, of course, UUCP. > > There is a more modern replacement called NNCP that has quite a few nice > > properties. It is still asynchronous, but it is fully encrypted and > > authenticated, supports tor-style onion routing and async multicast, and > > so forth. I have made some blog posts about it and also offer Usenet > > feeds over NNCP. UUCP or NNCP would be perfect fits for something like > > this. > > Hey, thanks for the writeups on NNCP. I've been interested in NNCP for a > year or two, but haven't actually used it because the existing > documentation isn't very concrete. I am *very* interested in building a > Usenet/post-Usenet feed on top of NNCP, so I'll be reading your writeup > with much interest. I suppose I come across as a cranky old fart, but I had a quick look at it, and it is a project written in Go, shipping 11Mb of source. Now, the reason I interested in gemini is that I'd like to understand and simplify my computing world as well as disentangle myself from the sticky surveillance web. Installing yet another large runtime associated with a surveillance capitalist is not how I like to go about that. So regrettably this isn't for me. Which is a pity: A number of ideas in it look neat - eg the chunked file fragments which are encrypted at rest. And the use of NaCl also seems a positive. I see this issue (and frankly, worse) in so many cases: - Nice articulate article explaining the need for privacy - but the html contains vast amounts of JS to google analytics, fonts, apis, etc - New meshnet project all in favour of decentralisation - but runs its development chat on slack - New software claiming to implement some simple, lightweight infrastructure - but its critical dependency is a "modern" web browser, hands down the most complex piece of software in common use I suppose everybody has different priorities or maybe the enthusiastic newcomer just doesn't know about all the nuances, the politics embedded in their infrastructure... but from my vantage these things are critical. [ALSO: not replying to the gemini list only, but CC'ing it. Is the list even operational ? The last message I received from it was on the 3rd] regards marc
---
Previous Thread: [Tech] A server to test client certificates?
Next Thread: [Tech] The security consequences of the Web complexity