Difference between revisions of "Meshnet"

Revision as of 20:26, 26 September 2016

This project aims to create an accessible mesh network for Huntsville. This network would operate independently from the Internet and ideally would not rely on the Internet for any of its functions.

Goals

These goals are roughly in order of descending priority.

1. The mesh should provide connectivity between mesh participants.
2. The mesh should be as wide-reaching as possible.
3. Joining the mesh should be accessible and understandable to the general public.
4. The mesh should integrate with participants' Internet CPE (customer premises equipment) if they wish to do so. If they do not, it should also be capable of operating independently.
5. The mesh should provide access to communication services that can be used even when the Internet is inaccessible for some or all participants.
6. The mesh should provide access to existing Internet overlays with the spirit of Maker culture, such as dn42, as well as those that promote anonymity and privacy, such as the I2P or the Tor Project.

Strategy

Here's the current strategy plan for each of the goals

1. Basic connectivity
   • We will build the links using commodity point-to-point and point-to-multipoint hardware.
     • Popular vendors include Ubiquiti and Mikrotik.
     • Popular spectrums include 900MHz, 2.4GHz, and 5.2-5.7GHz.
   • We will then use a protocol that can automatically select a path between two nodes.
     • We can use the normal Spanning Tree Protocol, but it might require a lot of configuration to be optimal. It is pretty dumb by default.
     • Or we can use batman-adv, but the compatibility will be worse. (We couldn't use Mikrotik RouterOS for this, for instance.)
2. Coverage
   • At first, we will light some fairly long-range links, in order to get some "islands" of connectivity spread throughout Five Points and the neighboring areas.
   • Then, we can do outreach to the areas surrounding the "islands" in order to get more participants and a wider range of nodes.
   • Finally, the nodes will interconnect further, creating redundant paths for reliability and speed.
3. Accessibility
   • The creators/maintainers of the mesh should be able to hand off CPE to participants in a state that requires little maintenance or configuration.
4. Integration
   • A static route can be added to almost all CPE provided by Internet service providers. A static route would be used in order to make the IP space of the mesh accessible from the participants' "normal" wireless networks, if desired.
   • If that's not desired, the mesh CPE would need to broadcast a small (maybe 5GHz-only) network so that they can connect to that to use the mesh.
   • Or maybe even that will not be necessary, as some participants may wish only to further the purpose of the mesh without providing a point of connection.
5. Services
   • Makers Local can, on-premises, host some communication services for mesh users.
6. Peerings
   • These peerings could be located anywhere, but will likely be located at Makers Local, at least initially.
   • Redundancy could later be added, in case Makers Local loses its Internet connection.