[CS-FSLUG] Decentralized DNS

[Josiah Ritchie]

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:13 PM, David McGlone <david at dmcentral.net> wrote:

> On Wednesday, December 01, 2010 09:49:59 am Ed Hurst wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Peter J. Vasquez Sr. wrote:
> > > Using a decentralized system has it's dangers, and I think the goal
> > > the developers of this distributed DNS system is more of an awakening.
> > > It will be interested to see what comes from this, and what changes
> > > may take place as a result. I hope I've addressed your question, I've
> > > done my best to keep the answer short so as not to be too confusing.
> > > If there's something else you wanted to discuss, particularly on the
> > > distributed DNS project, I'd be happy to answer any questions. (I'm
> > > not involved in the project, but have started looking at the code).
> >
> > Outstanding answer. You summarized things I already understood and
> > extended it to areas which had puzzled me.
> >
> > Over the years I've kept track of a recurring theme of geeks seeking to
> > protect the Net from what they consider abusive controls. It does not
> > arise from something so simplistic as "corporate-government = evil
> > versus hackers = good".  Some corporate players seem consistently
> > benign, and a few truly evil, and most are simply opportunists. Some
> > governments cozy up with lobbyists, and some simply do what governments
> > have always done in seeking control. All that to say the issue at hand
> > is not so much the politics, but the results for you and me. It won't
> > matter who is doing what if there exists something in the nature of the
> > Internet which resists certain kinds of controls.
> >
> > It's more the fundamental question of the centralizers over the
> > de-centralizers. What you describe is a centralized system of passing
> > traffic, but that it doesn't have to be that way. Authoritative root
> > server systems for DNS are centralized and trusted, but provide the
> > choke point centralizers seek. As one who has suffered somewhat at the
> > hands of centralizers in various ways, I'm always interested in keeping
> > my eye on the counter efforts. I don't think I suffer too much from
> > cinema-based fantasies, since I hate TV and movies in general, but I do
> > admit to some ignorance of how the Net works. My calling and emphasis
> > has been on the nature and content of information for which I use the
> > Net, and I simply don't have the resources left to pursue the fine art
> > of systems administration and networking (see Ephesians 4).
> >
> > I recognize there is good and bad in having an Internet mono-culture. If
> > everyone used the same OS and applications, it would be like the Roman
> > roads, built to hasten military movements, but also easily adapted to
> > gospel spreading. I doubt anyone here doesn't realize Paul's Roman
> > citizenship was useful, even while Roman government was hardly benign.
> > It was Rome who eventually executed Paul, essentially for his preaching.
> > Other apostles went in other directions, using less centralized systems,
> > but we don't have Scripture accounts of them by which to compare, but
> > surely it had its advantages in leaving the Roman Empire to evangelize.
> > The question was not which was better, but to what one is called. So I
> > use Open Source right now, not because it's morally superior in my eyes,
> > but fits my calling best. My support is conditional, but I do support
> > it.
> >
> > I'm trying to extrapolate from the whining entertainment pirates to
> > those who have a godly reason to bypass the centralized system, even
> > while taking advantage of its presence. If all we get from this is a
> > better, continued distribution of Hollywood filth, they can keep it. If
> > it holds promise for those of us who may need to copy the technology to
> > avoid the consequences, intended or not, of increased centralized
> > control, then I want to know how I might make use of it, and what I need
> > to know to prepare for that.
>
> I don't understand.  I can't think of one godly reason to bypass it.
> enlightment me.


In certain countries the Bible is less than a welcome book. If we wanted to
access the BibleGateway.com in those countries who may use DNS as a means of
blocking such access, then a decentralized DNS would allow us to still
access the materials. We could then also change the IP associated with that
service regularly so that it would be difficult to block access to
BibleGateway.com without blocking large sections of the Internet. With IPv6
a certain amount of anonymity related to each IP would also be available
making it more difficult to track down the offending IPs owners. It would
certainly only be a part of the solution, but the distribution of media
whether smut or the Bible is still the distribution of 0 and 1s so the
potential exists for the tech to be used for good.

JSR/

-- 
Our Mission
Technology and Hospitality for God's Workmen
http://missions.ritchietribe.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ofb.biz/pipermail/christiansource_ofb.biz/attachments/20101201/edc28389/attachment.htm>