[MLB-WIRELESS] So how does this routing bit work?

[vortex]

On Friday 29 March 2002  9:31 am, Ben Anderson wrote:
> If we, for example, threw out the network layer (which we could think about
> say on an unrouted ethernet cloud), we could still make everything work by
> getting packets around just by MAC address...  My point is we can keep the
> IP layer, but use layer 2 to keep the majority of the smarts in routing
> packets around the wireless mesh (I still think looking at layer 3 and 4
> state information will be useful in layer 2's routing strategy, but it
> shouldn't need to modify data, just listen to it)

not sure what your position is on this, but don't even think of layer 2 
'routing'. that's definitely the scalable role of this IP thingie.

> You find a solution that solves the problems I want to solve, and I'll use
> it.  I don't believe it exists, which is why I'm looking at engineering a
> solution.  American and Europe, for all they've contributed, aren't the
> only source of innovation.

Actually, a significant part of the innovations up north come from wandering 
aussies. ;)

seattlewireless, consume, free2air and other groups are testing various 
tunnelling (GRE, L2TP,PPTP, IPsec) and routing protocols (OSPF, AODV) and 
dynamic systems (mobilemesh, mobile IP, RSIP, etc) their application over 
public access wireless infrastructures.

I know this sounds obvious, but a large part of the problem is defining the 
requirements. 

a start?

- coordinated, distributed IP netowrk allocation and management
- highly distributed route management & ownership
- secure authenticated route distribution

> Short term, out of the box makes sense.  Long term, a better out of the box
> solution makes sense.  It's this better solution that I'm trying to get
> built.

Agreed. I think that OOTB is best, and the medium term solution lies in 
agreement on how existing packages can be implemented and configured to 
achieve our goals.

IMO, this is mostly a human organisational problem, not a technical one.

.vortex