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

[Ben Anderson]

> >>>And implemented 'nastily' it'd make the
> >>>network suck.  I'm proposing using the mojo only to give people the
> >>>
> >ability
> >
> >>>to get low-latency access to the network.
> >>>
> >>at the expense of everyone else
> >>
> >
> >Of course.  I think this is better than allowing leaf-nodes to fully
> >saturate the bandwidth of the network trading mp3's, movies, wares or
porn
> >(not that this content has anything inherantly wrong with it as data),
just
> >that it DoS's the low-latency people.  Some tradeoff has to be made.  Why
is
> >your tradeoff in the direction of 'good for leechs' (which is inherantly
bad
> >for network scalability, as it encourages people away from taking
> >responsibilty for addint to the network infrastructure, and secondly,
> >encourages altrustic people who do provide infrastructure to provide less
> >infrastructure as people complain about shit access) better than my
tradeoff
> >that allows low latency traffic in exact proportion with the networks
> >capability to carry it?
> >
>
> My tradeoff is good for everyone. I would rather solve the congestion by
> increasing links and link bandwidth. You would rather solve the problem
> by capping/throttling/limiting bandwidth. My way the network expands
> rapidly, your way it shrivels and dies, and people go back to Telstra,
> who suddenly don't seem so evil.

1.  Your tradeoff is only good for people who want bandwidth over latency.
Does that statement make sense to you?
2. I don't want to cap/throttle/limit.  I want to _prioritise_.  Big
difference.
    2.5. I want to provide a QoS capable service with the mojo concept.  And
whatever bandwidth is 'available' is available to all, for free, while
protecting the networks capability to send low latency data.
3.  You haven't yet proposed a method for encouraging people to increase
links and link bandwidth in a way that is scalable.
4.  You assert that your "free, rely on altruism" is going to cause a rapid
growth, you haven't yet provided any evidence as to why this will be the
case.  And I have provided evidence to the contrary.
5.  You assert "[my] way it shrivels and dies"  without providing any
evidence.
6.  You try and create a link between an emotioanlly charged entity such as
telstra, and a networking concept that I think works to protect freedom, not
undermine it.  And you do so without providing justification for the link.
Sounds like you're trying to win a popularity contest rather than have a
rational, reasonable argument.


> ive snipped the rest as its all been said before, lets take this off
> list and make a wiki page or something if you want to continue.

Feel free to be the one to start and manage a wiki page, if it's that
important to you.

Ben.


--
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