Talk:Dn42

History - PeerIX project vs diac24

Until some time ago, Wikipedia stated that the dn42 from DIAC24 was a "reboot". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dn42&oldid=366190585)

However, this has been changed. Now the question is: What is correct? As far as I know, dn42 is a kind of diac24 v2.0. Furthermore, you can actually recognize this by the fact that diac24 uses similar technologies to the current dn42. Back then, for example, the registry was still managed in a wiki and not in Git. Mark22k (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I also asked in the dn42 IRC. They were also confused about PeerIX. It was suspected that the participants of PeerIX and diac24/dn42 had overlapped. Mark22k (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Questions about the inclusion of "NeoNetwork"

I noticed that "NeoNetwork" is mentioned several times throughout the article, and I have some concerns about this. First, the name appears abruptly in the technical sections without any prior introduction, which is confusing for readers who don't know what it is. Second, I question whether this project is significant enough to be cited so frequently. Does it have the user base or history to be treated alongside major networks like Freifunk or ChaosVPN? Unless it is a widely established project, giving it this much attention seems unbalanced. I suggest removing the specific technical details about it and perhaps only listing it once in the interconnections section. ~2025-39497-72 (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

A few points:

1. The same argument could also be applied to CRXN, ChaosVPN, and IC-VPN.

2. I think an explanation or introduction to the other networks would actually be a nice addition.

3. From your text, I gather that you classify ChaosVPN as a "large network" The NeoNetwork is many times larger. While ChaosVPN still exists, it is very inactive in some respects. In contrast, the NeoNetwork is very active. This can be seen both in the commit activity of the registry on GitHub and in the GRC data, which shows a large number of NeoNetwork routes. I believe the technical details are important points.

4. Furthermore, I think it makes sense to include all interconnected networks in the article, regardless of their size. Otherwise, the information about dn42 would simply be incomplete. The scope could indeed be debated. Although I must admit personally that I don’t know where one could cut back. I believe the technical details are important points.

5. The dn42 does not establish interconnections with other networks in a random manner. Every new interconnection must be discussed on the mailing list. This is followed by a discussion, after which the interconnection is implemented at the registry level. All of this involves a significant amount of effort. It can therefore be assumed that the interconnections are not chosen at random, but that each one has a valid reason for existing. Mark22k (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

"mirror" links removal

DN42 is not an organization in the classical sense, there are no authoritative people who could host "the" DN42 website. Internally, the wiki (which is also the "website") is represented by a git repo and any member is free to host it on the public internet on their domain. Thus, I don't think User:Electricmemorys deletion of the external links is warranted, just because they are called mirrors. ~2026-35038-54 (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

That explicitly supports my removal, actually, as you’ve said yourself the external links are not those of the service itself and thus do not belong there. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 09:31, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Then I'm sorry for undoing your edits without letting you respond first! ~2026-35038-54 (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I disagree and I added one back. It is based on a Git wiki, the *contents* are officially representing the community consensus. It makes sense to link to at least one, unless that particular one starts to deviate from others, in which case we can change the link. This is one of those WP:IAR cases I believe. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I think, for redundancy's sake (what if burble, the operator of dn42.dev, suddenly stops hosting it?), the second link mentioned earlier should be added. Alternatively, you could add a link to the Git repository, but as an anti-spam measure, this is behind a registration wall (you can only view it if you have an account). Mark22k (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

The article currently states "official website" but that is incorrect. There is no official website. Mark22k (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2026 (UTC)