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

[Ben Anderson]

> 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.


--
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