theme: Switch to docsy theme

1 files changed, 124 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/content/en/docs/Faq/_index.md b/content/en/docs/Faq/_index.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f5599e3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/en/docs/Faq/_index.md
@@ -0,0 +1,124 @@
+---
+title: "FAQ"
+date:  2019-06-22
+draft: false
+description: >
+    Frequently Asked Questions.
+weight: 85
+---
+
+Got a question that is not listed here? Just pop it on our IRC channel
+or mailing list and we will be happy to answer it!
+
+[What is Ouroboros?](#what)\
+[Is Ouroboros the same as the Recursive InterNetwork Architecture
+(RINA)?](#rina)\
+[How can I use Ouroboros right now?](#deploy)\
+[What are the benefits of Ouroboros?](#benefits)\
+[How do you manage the namespaces?](#namespaces)\
+
+### <a name="what">What is Ouroboros?</a>
+
+Ouroboros is a packet-based IPC mechanism. It allows programs to
+communicate by sending messages, and provides a very simple API to do
+so. At its core, it's an implementation of a recursive network
+architecture. It can run next to, or over, common network technologies
+such as Ethernet and IP.
+
+[[back to top](#top)]
+
+### <a name="rina">Is Ouroboros the same as the Recursive InterNetwork Architecture (RINA)?</a>
+
+No. Ouroboros is a recursive network, and is born as part of our
+research into RINA networks. Without the pioneering work of John Day and
+others on RINA, Ouroboros would not exist. We consider the RINA model an
+elegant way to think about distributed applications and networks.
+
+However, there are major architectural differences between Ouroboros and
+RINA. The most important difference is the location of the "transport
+functions" which are related to connection management, such as
+fragmentation, packet ordering and automated repeat request (ARQ). RINA
+places these functions in special applications called IPCPs that form
+layers known as Distributed IPC Facilities (DIFs) as part of a protocol
+called EFCP. This allows a RINA DIF to provide an *IPC service* to the
+layer on top.
+
+Ouroboros has those functions in *every* application. The benefit of
+this approach is that it is possible to multi-home applications in
+different networks, and still have a reliable connection. It is also
+more resilient since every connection is - at least in theory -
+recoverable unless the application itself crashes. So, Ouroboros IPCPs
+form a layer that only provides *IPC resources*. The application does
+its connection management, which is implemented in the Ouroboros
+library. This architectural difference impact the components and
+protocols that underly the network, which are all different from RINA.
+
+This change has a major impact on other components and protocols. We are
+preparing a research paper on Ouroboros that will contain all these
+details and more.
+
+[[back to top](#top)]
+
+### <a name="deploy">How can I use Ouroboros right now?</a>
+
+At this point, Ouroboros is a useable prototype. You can use it to build
+small deployments for personal use. There is no global Ouroboros network
+yet.
+
+[[back to top](#top)]
+
+### <a name="benefits">What are the benefits of Ouroboros?</a>
+
+We get this question a lot, and there is no single simple answer to
+it.  Its benefits are those of a RINA network and more. In general, if
+two systems provide the same service, simpler systems tend to be the
+more robust and reliable ones. This is why we designed Ouroboros the
+way we did. It has a bunch of small improvements over current networks
+which may not look like anything game-changing by themselves, but do
+add up. The reaction we usually get when demonstrating Ouroboros, is
+that it makes everything really really easy.
+
+Some benefits are improved anonymity as we do not send source addresses
+in our data transfer packets. This also prevents all kinds of swerve and
+amplification attacks. The packet structures are not fixed (as the
+number of layers is not fixed), so there is no fast way to decode a
+packet when captured "raw" on the wire. It also makes Deep Packet
+Inspection harder to do. By attaching names to data transfer components
+(so there can be multiple of these to form an "address"), we can
+significantly reduce routing table sizes.
+
+The API is very simple and universal, so we can run applications as
+close to the hardware as possible to reduce latency. Currently it
+requires quite some work from the application programmer to create
+programs that run directly over Ethernet or over UDP or over TCP. With
+the Ouroboros API, the application doesn't need to be changed. Even if
+somebody comes up with a different transmission technology, the
+application will never need to be modified to run over it.
+
+Ouroboros also makes it easy to run different instances of the same
+application on the same server and load-balance them. In IP networks
+this requires at least some NAT trickery (since each application is tied
+to an interface:port). For instance, it takes no effort at all to run
+three different webserver implementations and load-balance flows between
+them for resiliency and seamless attack mitigation.
+
+The architecture still needs to be evaluated at scale. Ultimately, the
+only way to get the numbers, are to get a large (pre-)production
+deployment with real users.
+
+[[back to top](#top)]
+
+### <a name="namespaces">How do you manage the namespaces?</a>
+
+Ouroboros uses names that are attached to programs and processes. The
+layer API always uses hashes and the network maps hashes to addresses
+for location. This function is similar to a DNS lookup. The current
+implementation uses a DHT for that function in the ipcp-normal (the
+ipcp-udp uses a DynDNS server, the eth-llc and eth-dix use a local
+database with broadcast queries).
+
+But this leaves the question how we assign names. Currently this is
+ad-hoc, but eventually we will need an organized way for a global
+namespace so that application names are unique. If we want to avoid a
+central authority like ICANN, a distributed ledger would be a viable
+technology to implement this, similar to, for instance, namecoin.