[MLB-WIRELESS] Re: Node x is over this way -was- Applications

[Shane Chubb]

This isn't a new episode of Austin Powers...

Personally if anyone tried to implement a mojo-meter (for want of a
better word) and decided who was more important based on it, I would not
want to be part of that network.  Perhaps Ziggy would like to hear your
thoughts tho.

And whilst we're on the matter, say a node was being restricted to the
their lame-mojo rating dont you think they are going to be looking for
other ways around the problem.

Not everybody plans to use the network to 100% capacity 100% of the
time.  If you think your going to get that, you should be setting up
your own private network.

This was going and in my mind still is going to be a FREE network.  No
limitations can be imposed or it's not free.  This sounds like those
FREE internet services where they stream adds to you (you pay the price
by watching their adds).  If your concerned about congestion in your
neck of the woods, invest some time and effort into building the
community around you instead of trying to control the entire network.
Its like trying to get the Government to make the roads smoother instead
of fixing your suspension.

Mojo this, Mojo that, I really cant believe this is a serious
discussion.

Smashing Baby Yeah.... NOT!

PS - want to flame me in return for this - make it a private post,
others dont want to read about that.



-----Original Message-----
From: Drew [mailto:drew at wirelessanarchy.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 7:16 AM
To: Ben Anderson
Cc: Clae; melbwireless at wireless.org.au; jon at webprophets.com.au
Subject: Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] Re: Node x is over this way -was-
Applications


>
>
>Correct.  Though long range links are generally expensive...  Perhaps
>tunneling over the internet could be useful in removing the need for
>network-wide broadcast discovery...  Hmm, that and mobile-mesh could
work
>quite well...  That'd save a lot of engineering...  But still, it
doesn't
>incorporate a decent encryption layer, or a 'mojo' layer either...
>I think I'm going to have to sleep on this... I'm still thinking
there's
>some issues with this method I'm not considering yet...
>
There are *tons* of issues. The main problem with the mojo idea, is that

it doesn't solve what it's trying to.

example - problem: bandwidth congestion
how does mojo attempt to solve this? by creating a class system where 
those with more links get more mojo, while those on the outskirts, or 
those who cant afford to put 5 cards and 5 antenna on their roofs are 
penalized by the system. so how could those people gain more mojo? by 
sending more traffic. thus actually increasing the amount of traffic on 
the network, as these people try to earn "credits" so they can download.

mojo is like a ratio FTP site, but part of the network, instead of just 
some horrible idea on a ftpd.

lets try this again without mojo
problem: bandwidth congestion
how do people solve this? those that have LOS, and can afford it, add 
more links out of their congested cloud, or across their congested 
cloud. say 2 people do this on each end of this cloud, now suddenly, 
traffic is reduced by 50% in the cloud, as there are now a route closer 
to 50% of the people than the other. this helps everyone, not just the 
person doing the longer link. enough people do this and the problem is 
gone. there is incentive here, and it will happen without mojo. those 
setting up the links have 0 hops to a shortcut, of course they'd want to

set one up.

-Drew





--
To unsubscribe, send mail to minordomo at wireless.org.au with a subject of
'unsubscribe melbwireless'  
Archive at:
http://www.wireless.org.au/cgi-bin/minorweb.pl?A=LIST&L=melbwireless
IRC at: au.austnet.org #melb-wireless


--
To unsubscribe, send mail to minordomo at wireless.org.au with a subject of 'unsubscribe melbwireless'  
Archive at: http://www.wireless.org.au/cgi-bin/minorweb.pl?A=LIST&L=melbwireless
IRC at: au.austnet.org #melb-wireless