[MLB-WIRELESS] VPNs

[Dan Flett]

Imagine this situation - an access point at point A and an access point at
point B.  Points A and B are a very long distance from each other.  If a
person with a wireless device at point A can connect to a person with a
wireless device at point B, do the two people care *how* points A and B are
linked?  Would the two people think that they were connected to a wired
network?  Does it matter if the link between point A and point B is purely
wireless or in some part comprises an Internet tunnel?  The reason why you
build a network is ultimately for it's usefulness to the end users.  A
collection of unconnected node clusters is far less useful than if all those
clusters are interconnected.

The boast "our network is entirely wireless" is only impressive to a certain
number of engineers and other geek-types.  The boast "our network allows you
to connect from any point in Melbourne to any other point, for free" is far
more interesting to the wider population.

I think the major objection to Internet tunnelling is that it makes us
dependant on the telcos, and that Melbourne Wireless should be about
sticking it up the telcos.  To that I say, by using their bandwidth and not
paying any extra for it, we effectively *are* sticking it up the telcos. :)
And if they decide they don't like what we're doing and they put a stop to
it, we will be no worse off than our present situation.

I believe the decision about where and how links are made is purely up to
each individual node-owner.  If you don't like Internet tunnelling, no one's
forcing you to use it.

Cheers,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-melbwireless at wireless.org.au 
> [mailto:owner-melbwireless at wireless.org.au] On Behalf Of sanbar
> Sent: Saturday, 12 November 2005 11:05 PM
> Cc: Melbourne Wireless
> Subject: Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] VPNs
> 
> Michael Borthwick wrote:
> > 
> > On 12/11/2005, at 9:02 AM, David Ashburner wrote:
> > 
> >>
> >>
> >>> Another thought regarding VPNs.  What we're really aiming 
> to do is 
> >>> to create a tunnel.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yep exactly - A tunnel that joins two parts of a wireless network 
> >> together so it can function as a network.
> > 
> > 
> > as a wired network.
> 
> OK, before we start spinning off into factions made up of 
> wired wannabes and wireless purists, this may be the only way 
> that Melbourne Wireless becomes more than just Melbourne and 
> wireless. If you're going to grow the network, then wired 
> tunnelling is one of many options, which may even include 
> carrier pigeon.  Don't dis it.
> On the same side of the coin, two Melbourne Wireless members 
> running a closed network 200m apart makes fsck-all 
> contribution to the greater good. Is that any worse than two 
> disparate nodes making a wired tunnel that feeds into 
> wireless links either end? I think not.
> So who's with Netspace that's willing to make a tunnel? 
> Message me off-list for details. Let's show these pedantic 
> freaked-out frequency pansies what can be done.
> Vak: VPN beer mate?
> 
> - Barry (of the flame-proof undergarments)
> 
> --
> http://antifsck.dyndns.org
> 
> To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au with 
> "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message
> 
> 

To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message