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

[Ben Anderson]

> May I just add something:
>
> Problem A - we don't want anybody to know physically where any of the
> nodes are, but we want the link-layer to self-optimise.
>
> JonSay:  Forget it!  Don't try to solve this problem, its too hard!
> Instead:

I think it's not too hard to have a self-optimising layer that does this...
At least, I haven't found a good reason as to why it's too hard...


> Problem B - even though the nodes use physical location, GPS etc, to
> manage link-layer optimisation, we want it to be impossible to _prove_
> that a given node is the site of an actionable (eg. unlawful) data item.

Yup, though just that isn't enough for the safety of the node in some cases,
where guilt is assumed and you have to prove the data isn't unlawful.


> JonSay:  Yes!  But its a higher level problem.

I think it should be built into the networking stack as a default, rather
than an applicaiton layer tunnel through the rest... it makes it look like a
big nasty hack.

> In other words, I say - just make the link layer as fast as we can.
> Approach B is for when we get to the stage of worrying about what we are
> transmitting.

Yep, there's certainly elements of what we need to look at.  If we hadn't
had the discussion, we wouldn't have come up with a way of migrating to our
eventual solution from the initial implementation.  So this talk is
basically very useful, and a good thing.

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