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

[Shane Chubb]

I now understand why so many people are unsubscribing from this list.



an·ar·chy     <http://www.dictionary.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html>
Pronunciation Key  (
<http://cache.dictionary.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/abreve.gif> n
<http://cache.dictionary.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gif>
<http://cache.dictionary.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif> r-k
<http://cache.dictionary.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gif> )
n. pl. an·ar·chies 


1.	Absence of any form of political authority. 

2.	Political disorder and confusion. 

3.	Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or
purpose. 


  _____  

[New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhi
<http://cache.dictionary.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.gif> ,
from anarkhos, without a ruler  : an-, without; see a-1 + arkhos, ruler;
see -arch.]

Source <http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=00-database-info&db=ahd4> :
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.	



-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Anderson [ mailto:a_neb at optushome.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:10 AM
To: Shane Chubb; Drew; drew at no6.com
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


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

I knew the term 'mojo' wasn't ideal :)


> 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.

It's not about deciding importance...  It's trying to make the network
scale
to more than a small community.


> 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.

Saying "restricted to mojo rating" implies that users are going to have
access cut off if they spend more than they make.  Not true, they only
get
limited access to the resources under demand.  Anything that's not being
used, goes up for grabs.
And can you refrain from including so much emotional language in your
email,
you make this sound like a flame :)


> 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.

It's not about me.  It never was.  It's about getting this network to
scale
to whole city+ size.


> 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.

I'm concerned about congestion *everywhere* -- I can't build a
city-sized
private network without more money.  And more money implies I need to
become
more capitalistic, less altruistic.  You sound like someone who values
freedom, and should understand why I hesitate to make this choice.
In your "free" network you're making a tradeoff between who gets access
to
bandwidth.  Basically in your system, users who want low-latency access
get
trodden all over by people who want high bandwidth access.  And this
problem
becomes exponentially worse as more leaf nodes are added.


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

Look past the word.  Call them tiddlywinks.  Call them 'zoinks'  call
them
'shanes' -- I don't care.  All I want is some QoS metric that gets
distributed in some sort of fair fashion.  Leaving it open slather,
unrestricted is decidedly not fair for applications that require a low
latency, so I don't understand how you consider your tradeoff between
access, bandwidth and latency is inherantly freeer than my design.

> 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.

Hopefully I haven't used enough emotional language in this message for
it to
be considered a flame.  I'm not attacking you personally.  Not
discounting
your ideas, or your right to say them.  I'm pointing out inherant design
problems with the design you've chosen to call "free" -- I challenge you
to
come up with alternative more "free" methods of protecting the network
against DoS, large scale scalability and providing some QoS metric.

Cheers,
Ben.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wireless.org.au/pipermail/melbwireless/attachments/20020320/1b7a2b55/attachment.html>