[MLB-WIRELESS] more important issues <aka: guerilla radio is by ninjas, for ninjas. Worked for global IP's development!>

[Ben Ryan]

> After a while of reading people debate about bandwidth sharing, etc, I
> see that in some ways its good to talk about the future, but that
> dosen't solve the present.

I agree. IP ToS was around for years, but the header bits went mainly
unchecked by routers. Only in the past few has QoS become an issue,
and IMO is unmistakeably driven by economic factors, not technical
factors. At the risk of sounding grandiose, peer-to-peer networking
<..bingo! ;)..> is the equivalent of 60's/70's global IP ("internet").
Commercial interests aren't in control, and hopefully will stay out
until all the fun is gone (some would say one leads to the other).
So just like the net used to be, it's by users, for users.
And fortunately it's just a bit too complex, expensive and
motivation-intensive for every man and his dog to get on (leechers,
fux0rs). Net result <sorry> is that we can concentrate on core
infrastructure and protocols, which is enough work itself, without
having to make the whole thing unmanageable by throwing bandwidth and
security issues in the mix. Evidence of this is setting up an NT/2K
box with a few services; it's not very hard to get ip working,
configure IIS and Exchange, NBT/SMB and other services running, but it
is a shit of a job locking it all down. And by it's nature, lockdown
always limits functionality. So I also share the opinion that we
should not be getting granular security and b/w mgmnt in the road, but
simply perform the equivalent of Win9x FP sharing: Share perms: read
only, full axs and none. Build a boundary before walling between
flats, and keep it that way until the flats get a few bad neighbours.
Then worry about it.

> It seems currently that things like infrastructure need to be addressed.
> Currently I have two others connected in our network/cell, and other
> bigger issues than sharing bandwidth are ip allocation. Is there
> sometime in the forseeable future were all supposed to be connected,
> then how is this supposed to be addressed. Be our own little cell till
> the cells interconnect and work out problems then or sort out the niggly
> bits now peice by peice, or rebuild a network as we attach ourselves. I
> would want to change ips, etc in the forseeable future.
> Its all good and fair to write how to share bandwidth, but most people
> are still in the thought stage and would rather want to know what is to
> offer and what structure is offered.

> True those issues on bandwidth are valid (in the future), and certainly
> if it is to become a organisation of such I can't disagree to talk about
> lawyers to form the organisation.
> Back to my issue as for ip allocation allow each cell to develop its
> own, and rework it, etc as it expands/merges (other cells), or have a
> adressing scheme in place. Currently I'm using the 10.0.0.x addressing
> range.
> Also what would the domain be? x.melbournewireless.dyns.org?, or each
> cell to his own.
> So flame me, but these issues need to be address if for it future and
> expansion.

No flames can be justified for expressing a valid opinion. Nor should
there be that sort of denigration within our collective: we rely on
the warm-and-fuzzy feel-good happy neighbour "open-source" mentality
to make this thing work. How many IETF and ICANN committees and
working groups have collapsed under their own internal strife and
torpedoed good technologies lacking in standardisation in the process?
Ehe, ORBS and MAPS eg. Same destination, but with egos and personal
wheelbarrows blocking the road. Net effect is collapse.
So enuff of the philosphy incursion, some tech is due.

Infrastructure issues need to be defined before they can be addressed.
I don't think a list is the best place to collaborate on development;
there's a board up, and threads are the only way to manage dev
discussions... [Steve??]

Whether it goes in the form of loose working groups where broad areas
get assigned to groups; it's a way to take it from "throwing around
ideas randomly" to getting lunatics to group roughly, then setting
them on a slice of the design pie that they can have some personal
interest in... look at what Tim Berners-Lee's pet project turned
into :)
http://www.w3c.org



Anyways, here are a few things that need to be addressed   <cough>

*IP addressing - lots of work needed here to make sure scalability and
flexibility (roaming clients, distributed administration/delegation,
access parameters standard, etc)
*DNS - internal DNS hierachy to bring some workable order and
structure to the chaos
*Infrastructure - who? where? how?
*Information and resource collection - Some sort of central collection
of info; sorta like melbwireless.dyndns.org website, with their info
sections, but more comprehensive. Easily done by firing up members
into doing their own piece on something they know about; heh, for me,
there's lots that can be put up to help others but I ph33r the HTML -
maybe one of us has html as second nature and can facilitate the
process?




<sniff... what's that smell???>
after leaving a hot-jug of tea on the kitchen bench fire away for
half an hour till red hot and burning a wavelength-diameter hold in my
blacktop, and hazing out the whole house i reckon it's time to go
offline :(


cheers


ben


--
To unsubscribe, send mail to minordomo at melbwireless.dyndns.org with a subject of 'unsubscribe melbwireless'  
Archive of the Entire mailinst list at:
http://melbwireless.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/minorweb.pl?A=LIST&L=melbwireless