Added overview document
This commit is contained in:
parent
91728b100e
commit
03705372f8
|
@ -0,0 +1,492 @@
|
||||||
|
# Reticulum Overview
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This paper will briefly describe the overall purpose and operating principles of Reticulum, a
|
||||||
|
networking stack designed for reliable and secure communication over high-latency, low-bandwidth
|
||||||
|
links. It should give you an overview of how the stack works, and an understanding of how to
|
||||||
|
develop networked applications using Reticulum.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This document is not an exhaustive source of information on Reticulum, at least not yet. Currently,
|
||||||
|
the best place to go for such information is the Python reference implementation of Reticulum. Both
|
||||||
|
the reference implementation and this document may (and will) change rapidly in the current phase
|
||||||
|
of development, but historical versions will always be available in the Git repositories.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
After reading this document, you should be well-equipped to understand how a Reticulum network
|
||||||
|
operates, what it can achieve, and how you can use it yourself. If you want to help out with the
|
||||||
|
development, this is also the place to start, since it will also provide a pretty clear overview of the
|
||||||
|
sentiments and the philosophy behind Reticulum.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Motivation
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The primary motivation for designing and implementing Reticulum has been the current lack of
|
||||||
|
reliable, functional and secure minimal-infrastructure modes of digital communication. It is my
|
||||||
|
belief that it is highly desirable to create a cheap and reliable way to set up a wide-range digital
|
||||||
|
communication network that can securely allow exchange of information between people and
|
||||||
|
machines, with no central point of authority, control, censorship or barrier to entry.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Almost all of the various networking stacks in wide use today share a common limitation, namely
|
||||||
|
that they require large amounts of coordination to work. You can’t just plug in a bunch of ethernet
|
||||||
|
cables to the same switch, or turn on a number of WiFi radios, and expect such a setup to provide a
|
||||||
|
reliable platform for communication.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The designers of the Internet Protocol had the foresight to create a protocol that powers the modern
|
||||||
|
Internet, and works brilliantly in world very different from when it was conceived. But networks
|
||||||
|
using the traditional IP stack needs large amounts of coordination from the people involved, and
|
||||||
|
without central actors in ultimate control of network segments, it is very easy for a single person to
|
||||||
|
render the platform unusable for everyone else. These limitations are inherent to the design
|
||||||
|
principles of IP, and during the design of IP, this was a very reasonable tradeoff indeed.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Reticulum aims to require as little coordination and trust as possible. In fact, the only
|
||||||
|
“coordination” required is to know how to get connected to a Reticulum network. Since Reticulum
|
||||||
|
is medium agnostic, this could be whatever is best suited to the situation. In some cases, this might
|
||||||
|
be 1200 baud packet radio links over VHF frequencies, in other cases it might be a microwave
|
||||||
|
network using off-the-shelf radios. At the time of release of this document, the recommended setup
|
||||||
|
is using cheap LoRa radio modules with an open source firmware (see the chapter _Reference System
|
||||||
|
Setup_ ), connected to a small computer like a Raspberry Pi. As an example, the default reference
|
||||||
|
setup provides a channel capacity of 5.4 Kbps, and a usable direct node-to-node range of around 15
|
||||||
|
kilometers (indefinitely extendable by using multiple hops).
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Goals
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
To be as widely usable and easy to implement as possible, the following goals have been used to
|
||||||
|
guide the design of Reticulum:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **Fully useable as open source software stack**
|
||||||
|
Reticulum must be implemented, and be able to run using only open source software. This is
|
||||||
|
critical to ensuring availability, security and transparency of the system.
|
||||||
|
- **Hardware layer agnosticism**
|
||||||
|
Reticulum shall be fully hardware agnostic, and should be useable over a wide range
|
||||||
|
physical networking layers, such as data radios, serial lines, modems, handheld transceivers,
|
||||||
|
wired ethernet, wifi, or anything else that can carry a digital data stream. Hardware made for
|
||||||
|
dedicated Reticulum use shall be as cheap as possible and use off-the-shelf components, so
|
||||||
|
it can be easily replicated.
|
||||||
|
- **Very low bandwidth requirements**
|
||||||
|
Reticulum should be able to function reliably over links with a data capacity as low as _1,_
|
||||||
|
_bps_.
|
||||||
|
- **Encryption by default**
|
||||||
|
Reticulum must use encryption by default where possible and applicable.
|
||||||
|
- **Unlicensed use**
|
||||||
|
Reticulum shall be functional over physical communication mediums that do not require any
|
||||||
|
form of license to use. Reticulum must be designed in a way, so it is usable over ISM radio
|
||||||
|
frequency bands, and can provide functional long distance links in such conditions.
|
||||||
|
- **Supplied software**
|
||||||
|
Apart from the core networking stack and API, that allows any developer to build
|
||||||
|
applications with Reticulum, a basic communication suite using Reticulum must be
|
||||||
|
implemented and released at the same time as Reticulum itself. This shall serve both as a
|
||||||
|
functional communication suite, and as an example and learning resource to others wishing
|
||||||
|
to build applications with Reticulum.
|
||||||
|
- **Ease of use**
|
||||||
|
The reference implementation of Reticulum is written in Python, to make it very easy to use
|
||||||
|
and understand. Any programmer with only basic experience should be able to use
|
||||||
|
Reticulum in their own applications.
|
||||||
|
- **Low cost**
|
||||||
|
It shall be as cheap as possible to deploy a communication system based on Reticulum. This
|
||||||
|
should be achieved by using cheap off-the-shelf hardware that potential users might already
|
||||||
|
own. The cost of setting up a functioning node should be less than $100 even if all parts
|
||||||
|
needs to be purchased.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
# Introduction & Basic Functionality
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Reticulum is a networking stack suited for high-latency, low-bandwidth links. Reticulum is at it’s
|
||||||
|
core _message oriented_ , but can provide connection oriented sessions. It is suited for both local
|
||||||
|
point-to-point or point-to-multipoint scenarios where alle nodes are within range of each other, as
|
||||||
|
well as scenarios where packets need to be transported over multiple hops to reach the recipient.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Reticulum does away with the idea of addresses and ports known from IP, TCP and UDP. Instead
|
||||||
|
Reticulum uses the singular concept of _destinations_. Any application using Reticulum as it’s
|
||||||
|
networking stack will need to create one or more destinations to receive data, and know the
|
||||||
|
destinations it needs to send data to.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Reticulum encrypts all data by default using public-key cryptography. Any message sent to a
|
||||||
|
destination is encrypted with that destinations public key. Reticulum also offers symmetric key
|
||||||
|
encryption for group-oriented communications, as well as unencrypted packets for broadcast
|
||||||
|
purposes, or situations where you need the communication to be in plain text. The multi-hop
|
||||||
|
transport, coordination, verification and reliability layers are fully autonomous and based on public
|
||||||
|
key cryptography.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Reticulum can connect to a variety of interfaces such as radio modems, data radios and serial ports,
|
||||||
|
and offers the possibility to easily tunnel Reticulum traffic over IP links such as the Internet or
|
||||||
|
private IP networks.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Destinations
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
To receive and send data with the Reticulum stack, an application needs to create one or more
|
||||||
|
destinations. Reticulum uses three different basic destination types, and one special:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **Single**
|
||||||
|
The _single_ destination type defines a public-key encrypted destination. Any data sent to this
|
||||||
|
destination will be encrypted with the destination’s public key, and will only be readable by
|
||||||
|
the creator of the destination.
|
||||||
|
- **Group**
|
||||||
|
The _group_ destination type defines a symmetrically encrypted destination. Data sent to this
|
||||||
|
destination will be encrypted with a symmetric key, and will be readable by anyone in
|
||||||
|
possession of the key. The _group_ destination can be used just as well by only two peers, as it
|
||||||
|
can by many.
|
||||||
|
- **Plain**
|
||||||
|
A _plain_ destination type is unencrypted, and suited for traffic that should be broadcast to a
|
||||||
|
number of users, or should be readable by anyone.
|
||||||
|
- **Link**
|
||||||
|
A _link_ is a special destination type, that serves as an abstract channel between two _single_
|
||||||
|
destinations, directly connected or over multiple hops. The _link_ also offers reliability and
|
||||||
|
more efficient encryption, and as such is useful even when nodes are directly connected.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Destination Naming
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Destinations are created and named in an easy to understand dotted notation of _aspects_ , and
|
||||||
|
represented on the network as a hash of this value. The hash is a SHA-256 truncated to 80 bits. The
|
||||||
|
top level aspect should always be the a unique identifier for the application using the destination.
|
||||||
|
The next levels of aspects can be defined in any way by the creator of the application. For example,
|
||||||
|
a destination for a messaging application could be made up of the application name and a username,
|
||||||
|
and look like this:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
```
|
||||||
|
name: simplemessenger.someuser hash: 2a7ddfab5213f916dea
|
||||||
|
```
|
||||||
|
For the _single_ destination, Reticulum will automatically append the associated public key as a
|
||||||
|
destination aspect before hashing. This is done to ensure only the correct destination is reached,
|
||||||
|
since anyone can listen to any destination name. Appending the public key ensures that a given
|
||||||
|
packet is only directed at the destination that holds the corresponding private key to decrypt the
|
||||||
|
packet. It is important to understand that anyone can use the destination name
|
||||||
|
_simplemessenger.myusername_ , but each person that does so will still have a different destination
|
||||||
|
hash, because their public keys will differ. In actual use of _single_ destination naming, it is advisable
|
||||||
|
not to use any uniquely identifying features in aspect naming, though. In the simple messenger
|
||||||
|
example, when using _single_ destinations, we would instead use a destination naming scheme such
|
||||||
|
as _simplemessenger.user_ where appending the public key expands the destination into a uniquely
|
||||||
|
identifying one.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
To recap, the destination types should be used in the following situations:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **Single**
|
||||||
|
When private communication between two endpoints is needed. Supports routing.
|
||||||
|
- **Group**
|
||||||
|
When private communication between two or more endpoints is needed. More efficient in
|
||||||
|
data usage than _single_ destinations. Supports routing indirectly, but must first be established
|
||||||
|
through a _single_ destination.
|
||||||
|
- **Plain**
|
||||||
|
When plain-text communication is desirable, for example when broadcasting information.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
To communicate with a _single_ destination, you need to know it’s public key. Any method for
|
||||||
|
obtaining the public key is valid, but Reticulum includes a simple mechanism for making other
|
||||||
|
nodes aware of your destinations public key, called the _announce_.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Note that this information could be shared and verified in many other ways, and that it is therefore
|
||||||
|
not required to use the announce functionality, although it is by far the easiest, and should probably
|
||||||
|
be used if you are not confident in how to verify public keys and signatures manually.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Public key announcements
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
An _announce_ will send a special packet over any configured interfaces, containing all needed
|
||||||
|
information about the destination hash and public key, and can also contain some additional,
|
||||||
|
application specific data. The entire packet is signed by the sender to ensure authenticity. It is not
|
||||||
|
required to use the announce functionality, but in many cases it will be the simplest way to share
|
||||||
|
public keys on the network. As an example, an announce in a simple messenger application might
|
||||||
|
contain the following information:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- The announcers destination hash
|
||||||
|
- The announcers public key
|
||||||
|
- Application specific data, in this case the users nickname and availability status
|
||||||
|
- A random blob, making each new announce unique
|
||||||
|
- A signature of the above information, verifying authenticity
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
With this information, any Reticulum node that receives it will be able to reconstruct an outgoing
|
||||||
|
destination to securely communicate with that destination. You might have noticed that there is one
|
||||||
|
piece of information lacking to reconstruct full knowledge of the announced destination, and that is
|
||||||
|
the aspect names of the destination. These are intentionally left out to save bandwidth, since they
|
||||||
|
will be implicit in almost all cases. If a destination name is not entirely implicit, information can be
|
||||||
|
included in the application specific data part that will allow the receiver to infer the naming.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
It is important to note that announcements will be forwarded throughout the network according to a
|
||||||
|
certain pattern. This will be detailed later. Seeing how _single_ destinations are always tied to a
|
||||||
|
private/public key pair leads us to the next topic.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Identities
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
In Reticulum, an _identity_ does not necessarily represent a personal identity, but is an abstraction that
|
||||||
|
can represent any kind of _verified entity_. This could very well be a person, but it could also be the
|
||||||
|
control interface of a machine, a program, robot, computer, sensor or something else entirely. In
|
||||||
|
general, any kind of agent that can act, or be acted upon, or store or manipulate information, can be
|
||||||
|
represented as an identity.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
As we have seen, a _single_ destination will always have an _identity_ tied to it, but not _plain_ or _group_
|
||||||
|
destinations. Destinations and identities share a multilateral connection. You can create a
|
||||||
|
destination, and if it is not connected to an identity upon creation, it will just create a new one to use
|
||||||
|
automatically. This may be desirable in some situations, but often you will probably want to create
|
||||||
|
the identity first, and then link it to created destinations.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Building upon the simple messenger example, we could use an identity to represent the user of the
|
||||||
|
application. Destinations created will then be linked to this identity to allow communication to
|
||||||
|
reach the user. In such a case it is of great importance to store the user’s identity securely and
|
||||||
|
privately.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Getting Further
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The above functions and principles form the core of Reticulum, and would suffice to create
|
||||||
|
functional networked applications in local clusters, for example over radio links where all interested
|
||||||
|
nodes can hear each other. But to be truly useful, we need a way to go further. In the next chapter,
|
||||||
|
two concepts that allow this will be introduced, _paths_ and _resources_.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
# Transport
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
I have purposefully avoided the term routing until now, and will continue to do so, because the
|
||||||
|
current methods of routing used in IP based networks are fundamentally incompatible for the link
|
||||||
|
types that Reticulum was designed to handle. These routing methodologies assume trust at the
|
||||||
|
physical layer. Since Reticulum is designed to run over open radio spectrum, no such trust exists.
|
||||||
|
Furthermore, existing routing protocols like BGP or OSPF carry too much overhead to be
|
||||||
|
practically useable over bandwidth-limited, high-latency links.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
To overcome such challenges, Reticulum’s _Transport_ system uses public-key cryptography to
|
||||||
|
implement the concept of _paths_ that allow discovery of how to get information to a certain
|
||||||
|
destination, and _resources_ that help alleviate congestion and make reliable communication more
|
||||||
|
efficient and less bandwidth-hungry.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Threading a Path
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
In networks with changing topology and trustless connectivity, nodes need a way to establish
|
||||||
|
_verified connectivity_ with each other. To do this, the following process is employed:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- First, the node that wishes to establish connectivity will send out a special packet, that
|
||||||
|
traverses the network and locates the desired destination. Along the way, the nodes that
|
||||||
|
forward the packet will take note of this _link request_.
|
||||||
|
- Second, if the destination accepts the _link request_ , it will send back a packet that proves the
|
||||||
|
authenticity of it’s identity (and the receipt of the link request) to the initiating node. All
|
||||||
|
nodes that initially forwarded the packet will also be able to verify this proof, and thus
|
||||||
|
accept the validity of the _link_ throughout the network.
|
||||||
|
- When the validity of the _link_ has been accepted by forwarding nodes, these nodes will
|
||||||
|
remember the _link_ , and it can subsequently be used by referring to a hash representing it.
|
||||||
|
- As a part of the _link request_ , a Diffie-Hellman key exchange takes place, that sets up an
|
||||||
|
efficient symmetrically encrypted tunnel between the two nodes, using elliptic curve
|
||||||
|
cryptography. As such, this mode of communication is preferred, even for situations when
|
||||||
|
nodes can directly communicate, when the amount of data to be exchanged numbers in the
|
||||||
|
tens of packets.
|
||||||
|
- When a _link_ has been set up, it automatically provides message receipt functionality, so the
|
||||||
|
sending node can obtain verified confirmation that the information reached the intended
|
||||||
|
recipient.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
In a moment, we will discuss the specifics of how this methodology is implemented, but let’s first
|
||||||
|
recap what purposes this serves. We first ensure that the node answering our request is actually the
|
||||||
|
one we want to communicate with, and not a malicious actor pretending to be so. At the same time
|
||||||
|
we establish an efficient encrypted channel. The setup of this is relatively cheap in terms of
|
||||||
|
bandwidth, so it can be used just for a short exchange, and then recreated as needed, which will also
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
rotate encryption keys (keys can also be rotated over an existing path), but the link can also be kept
|
||||||
|
alive for longer periods of time, if this is more suitable to the application. The amount of bandwidth
|
||||||
|
used on keeping a link open is practically negligible. The procedure also inserts the _link id_ , a hash
|
||||||
|
calculated from the link request packet, into the memory of forwarding nodes, which means that the
|
||||||
|
communicating nodes can thereafter reach each other simply by referring to this _link id_.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Step 1, pathfinding**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The pathfinding method builds on the _announce_ functionality discussed earlier. When an announce
|
||||||
|
is sent out by a node, it will be forwarded by any node receiving it, but according to some specific
|
||||||
|
rules:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- If this announce has already been received before, ignore it.
|
||||||
|
- Record into a table which node the announce was received from, and how many times in
|
||||||
|
total it has been retransmitted to get here.
|
||||||
|
- If the announce has been retransmitted _m+1_ times, it will not be forwarded. By default, _m_ is
|
||||||
|
set to 18.
|
||||||
|
- The announce will be assigned a delay _d_ = _ch_ seconds, where _c_ is a decay constant, by
|
||||||
|
default 2, and _h_ is the amount of times this packet has already been forwarded.
|
||||||
|
- The packet will be given a priority _p = 1/d_.
|
||||||
|
- If at least _d_ seconds has passed since the announce was received, and no other packets with a
|
||||||
|
priority higher than _p_ are waiting in the queue (see Packet Prioritisation), and the channel is
|
||||||
|
not utilized by other traffic, the announce will be forwarded.
|
||||||
|
- If no other nodes are heard retransmitting the announce with a greater hop count than when
|
||||||
|
it left this node, transmitting it will be retried _r_ times. By default, _r_ is set to 2. Retries follow
|
||||||
|
same rules as above, with the exception that it must wait for at least _d = ch+1 + t_ seconds, ie.,
|
||||||
|
the amount of time it would take the next node to retransmit the packet. By default, _t_ is set to
|
||||||
|
10.
|
||||||
|
- If a newer announce from the same destination arrives, while an identical one is already in
|
||||||
|
the queue, the newest announce is discarded. If the newest announce contains different
|
||||||
|
application specific data, it will replace the old announce, but will use _d_ and _p_ of the old
|
||||||
|
announce.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Once an announce has reached a node in the network, any other node in direct contact with that
|
||||||
|
node will be able to reach the destination the announce originated from, simply by sending a packet
|
||||||
|
addressed to that destination. Any node with knowledge of the announce will be able to direct the
|
||||||
|
packet towards the destination by looking up the next node with the shortest amount of hops to the
|
||||||
|
destination. The specifics of this process is detailed in _Path Calculation_.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
According to these rules and default constants, an announce will propagate throughout the network
|
||||||
|
in a predictable way. In an example network utilising the default constants, and with an average link
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
distance of _Lavg =_ 15 kilometers, an announce will be able to propagate outwards to a radius of 180
|
||||||
|
kilometers in 34 minutes, and a _maximum announce radius_ of 270 kilometers in approximately 3
|
||||||
|
days. Methods for overcoming the distance limitation of _m * Lavg_ will be introduced later in this
|
||||||
|
chapter.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Step 2, link establishment**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
After seeing how the conditions for finding a path through the network are created, we will now
|
||||||
|
explore how two nodes can establish reliable communications over multiple hops. The _link_ in
|
||||||
|
Reticulum terminology should not be viewed as a direct node-to-node link on the physical layer, but
|
||||||
|
as an abstract channel, that can be open for any amount of time, and can span an arbitrary number
|
||||||
|
of hops, where information will be exchanged between two nodes.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- When a node in the network wants to establish verified connectivity with another node, it
|
||||||
|
will create a _link request_ packet, and broadcast it.
|
||||||
|
- The _link request_ packet contains the destination hash _Hd_ , and an asymmetrically encrypted
|
||||||
|
part containing the following data: The source hash _Hs_ , a symmetric key _Lk_ , a truncated
|
||||||
|
hash of a random number _Hr_ , and a signature _S_ of the plaintext values of _Hd_ , _Hs_ , _Lk_ and _Hr_.
|
||||||
|
- The broadcasted packet will be directed through the network according to the rules laid out
|
||||||
|
previously.
|
||||||
|
- Any node that forwards the link request will store a _link id_ in it’s _link table_ , along with the
|
||||||
|
amount of hops the packet had taken when received. The link id is a hash of the entire link
|
||||||
|
request packet. If the path is not _proven_ within some set amount of time, the entry will be
|
||||||
|
dropped from the table again.
|
||||||
|
- When the destination receives the link request packet, it will decide whether to accept the
|
||||||
|
request. If it is accepted, it will create a special packet called a _proof_. A _proof_ is a simple
|
||||||
|
construct, consisting of a truncated hash of the message that needs to be proven, and a
|
||||||
|
signature (made by the destination’s private key) of this hash. This _proof_ effectively verifies
|
||||||
|
that the intended recipient got the packet, and also serves to verify the discovered path
|
||||||
|
through the network. Since the _proof_ hash matches the _path id_ in the intermediary nodes’
|
||||||
|
_path tables_ , the intermediary nodes can forward the proof all the way back to the source.
|
||||||
|
- When the source receives the _proof_ , it will know unequivocally that a verified path has been
|
||||||
|
established to the destination, and that information can now be exchanged reliably and
|
||||||
|
securely.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
It’s important to note that this methodology ensures that the source of the request does not need to
|
||||||
|
reveal any identifying information. Only the intended destination will know “who called”, so to
|
||||||
|
speak. This is a huge improvement to protocols like IP, where by design, you have to reveal your
|
||||||
|
own address to communicate with anyone, unless you jump through a lot of hoops to hide it.
|
||||||
|
Reticulum offers initiator anonymity by design.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
When using _links_ , Reticulum will automatically verify anything sent over the link, and also
|
||||||
|
automates retransmissions if parts of a message was lost along the way. Due to the caching features
|
||||||
|
of Reticulum, such a retransmission does not need to travel the entire length of an established path.
|
||||||
|
If a packet is lost on the 8th hop of a 12 hop path, it can be fetched from the last hop that received it
|
||||||
|
reliably.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Crossing Continents
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
When a packet needs to travel farther than local network topology knowledge stretches, a system of
|
||||||
|
geographical or topological hinting is used to direct the packet towards a network segment with
|
||||||
|
direct knowledge of the intended destination. This functionality is currently left out of the protocol
|
||||||
|
for simplicity of testing other parts, but will be activated in a future release. For more information
|
||||||
|
on when, refer to the roadmap on the website.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Resourceful Memory
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
In traditional networks, large amounts of data is rapidly exchanged with very low latency. Links of
|
||||||
|
several thousand kilometers will often only have round-trip latency in the tens of milliseconds, and
|
||||||
|
as such, traditional protocols are often designed to not store any transmitted data at intermediary
|
||||||
|
hops. If a transmission error occurs, the sending node will simply notice the lack of a packet
|
||||||
|
acknowledgement, and retransmit the packet all the way, until it hears back from the receiver that it
|
||||||
|
got the intended data.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
In bandwidth-limited and high-latency conditions, such behaviour quickly causes congestion on the
|
||||||
|
network, and communications that span many hops become exceedingly expensive in terms of
|
||||||
|
bandwidth usage, due to the higher risk of some packets failing.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Reticulum alleviates this in part with it’s _path_ discovery methodology, and in part by implementing
|
||||||
|
_resource_ caching at all nodes that can support it. Network operation can be made much more
|
||||||
|
efficient by caching everything for a period of time, and given the availability of cheap memory and
|
||||||
|
storage, this is a very welcome tradeoff. A gigabyte of memory can store millions of Reticulum
|
||||||
|
packets, and since everything is encrypted by default, the storing poses very little privacy risk.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
In a Reticulum network, any node that is able to do so, should cache as many packets as it’s
|
||||||
|
memory will allow for. When a packet is received, a timestamp and a hash of the packet is stored
|
||||||
|
along with the full packet itself, and it will be kept in storage until the allocated cache storage is
|
||||||
|
full, whereupon the packet that was last accessed in the cache will be deleted. If a packet is accessed
|
||||||
|
from the cache, it’s timestamp will be updated to the current time, to ensure that packets that are
|
||||||
|
used stay in the cache, and packets that are not used are dropped from memory.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Some packet types are stored in separate caching tables, that allow easier lookup for other nodes.
|
||||||
|
For example, an announce is stored in a way, that allows other nodes to request the public key for a
|
||||||
|
certain destination, and as such the network as a whole operates as a distributed key ledger.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For more details on how the caching works and is used, see the reference implementation source
|
||||||
|
code.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
# Reference System Setup
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This section will detail the recommended _Reference System Setup_ for Reticulum. It is important to
|
||||||
|
note that Reticulum is designed to be usable over more or less any medium that allows you to send
|
||||||
|
and receive data in a digital form, and satisfies some very low minimum requirements. The
|
||||||
|
communication channel must support at least half-duplex operation, and provide an average
|
||||||
|
throughput of around 1000 bits per second, and supports a physical layer MTU of 500 bytes. The
|
||||||
|
Reticulum software should be able to run on more or less any hardware that can provide a Python
|
||||||
|
runtime environment.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
That being said, the reference setup has been outlined to provide a common platform for anyone
|
||||||
|
who wants to help in the development of Reticulum, and for everyone who wants to know a
|
||||||
|
recommended setup to get started. A reference system consists of three parts:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **A channel access device**
|
||||||
|
Or _CAD_ , in short, provides access to the physical medium whereupon the communication
|
||||||
|
takes place, for example a radio with an integrated modem. A setup with a separate modem
|
||||||
|
connected to a radio would also be termed a “channel access device”.
|
||||||
|
- **A host device**
|
||||||
|
Some sort of computing device that can run the necessary software, communicates with the
|
||||||
|
channel access device, and provides user interaction.
|
||||||
|
- **A software stack**
|
||||||
|
The software implementing the Reticulum protocol and applications using it.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The reference setup can be considered a relatively stable platform to develop on, and also to start
|
||||||
|
building networks on. While details of the implementation might change at the current stage of
|
||||||
|
development, it is the goal to maintain hardware compatibility for as long as entirely possible, and
|
||||||
|
the current reference setup has been determined to provide a functional platform for many years
|
||||||
|
into the future. The current Reference System Setup is as follows:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **Channel Access Device**
|
||||||
|
A data radio consisting of a LoRa radio module, and a microcontroller with open source
|
||||||
|
firmware, that can connect to host devices via USB. It operates in either the 430, 868 or 900
|
||||||
|
MHz frequency bands. More details on the exact parts and how to get/make one can be
|
||||||
|
found on the website.
|
||||||
|
- **Host device**
|
||||||
|
Any computer device running Linux and Python. A Raspberry Pi with Raspbian is
|
||||||
|
recommended.
|
||||||
|
- **Software stack**
|
||||||
|
The current Reference Implementation Release of Reticulum, running on a Debian based
|
||||||
|
operating system.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
It is very important to note, that the reference channel access device **does not** use the LoRaWAN
|
||||||
|
standard, but uses a custom MAC layer on top of the plain LoRa modulation! As such, you will
|
||||||
|
need a plain LoRa radio module connected to an MCU with the correct Reticulum firmware. Full
|
||||||
|
details on how to get or make such a device is available on the website.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
With the current reference setup, it should be possible to get on a Reticulum network for around 70$
|
||||||
|
even if you have none of the hardware already.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
# Protocol Specifics
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This chapter will detail protocol specific information that is essential to the implementation of
|
||||||
|
Reticulum, but non critical in understanding how the protocol works on a general level. It should be
|
||||||
|
treated more as a reference than as essential reading.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Node Types
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Currently Reticulum defines two node types, the _Station_ and the _Peer_. A node is a _station_ if it fixed
|
||||||
|
in one place, and if it is intended to be kept online at all times. Otherwise the node is a _peer_. This
|
||||||
|
distinction is made by the user configuring the node, and is used to determine what nodes on the
|
||||||
|
network will help forward traffic, and what nodes rely on other nodes for connectivity.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Packet Prioritisation
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
_The packet prioritisation algorithms are subject to rapid change at the moment, and for now, they
|
||||||
|
are not documented here. See the reference implementation for more info on how this functionality
|
||||||
|
works._
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Path Calculation
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
_The path calculation algorithms are subject to rapid change at the moment, and for now, they are
|
||||||
|
not documented here. See the reference implementation for more info on how this functionality
|
||||||
|
works._
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Binary Packet Format
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
_The binary packet format is subject to rapid change at the moment, and for now, it is not
|
||||||
|
documented here. See the reference implementation for the specific details on this topic._
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue