[MLB-WIRELESS] infrastructure thoughts

[Dan Flett]

My foot is firmly in the camp of "by any means necessary".

Wireless technology is still in it's infancy and is still changing rapidly.
Furthermore, as people use the technology, they find new ways of using it.
Community networkers, academic researchers and hardware manufacturers the
world over are learning from past experience and are starting think in new
ways about how to design and build self-configuring, scalable adhoc
networks.

I think if we take a dogmatic approach to our network we risk being left
behind.  If we have too many "thou shalt nots" our network could stagnate
and die - both because we will be using out-of-date techniques, and because
our members will feel disenfranchised.  I believe we need to look at a more
open approach to our network design - to allow node owners and regional
groups to experiment with their own routing schemes and generally give them
more local autonomy.  Melbourne Wireless Inc. doesn't own the network or
employ the node-owners, so Melbourne Wireless Inc. should not consider
itself the network administrator.  Questions about routing protocols, VPNs,
node design and such should not be set in stone, with changes allowed only
allowed by a central committee.  Let's face it - deliberating in committees
isn't fun, but fiddling with the latest network hardware and software is
fun, and fun is why the network builders get involved in the first place.

This approach may seem to encourage instability in the network, and in the
short term, it the network probably will be unstable.  But over I believe
time this approach will encourage the best methods to emerge.  People won't
have cause to argue whether this or that method is better because we will
have tried them all and decided for ourselves.

Melbourne Wireless has always considered itself to be the facilitating body
to allow it's members to build a community network.  I believe Melbourne
Wireless does it's best work when it does just that.  A network like ours
still relies on static IP addressing, so we need an IP allocation system to
avoid chaos.  The system we have now could be improved but works reasonably
well at the moment.  

Basically I think Melbourne Wireless works best when it provides a basic
framework for the growth of the network, and provides facilities and
resources to empower its members to organise themselves.  There needs to be
less rules, both written and unwritten, and less pseudo-administration over
the network structure.  Networks like ours are not built off a master plan,
but rather are grown organically.  We cannot predict how or where it will
grow.  We are better off learning general principles as to what makes our
network grow, and to create conditions that allow for maximum growth.

Rules and dogma are not attractive features of our organisation.  We are not
a church.  There is no one true path.  People should be allowed to
experiment and discuss their activities without fear of being told that they
are doing it the "wrong" way.  We should celebrate innovation and reward
those with the motivation to try something new.  What have we got to lose?
We're not a commercial network.  We don't have customers or service-level
agreements.  If things crash horribly, no-one gets fired, and no-one loses
money.  Instead we come away from the experience with more knowledge.  I
believe this attitude will make our organisation more interesting and fun,
and therefore more attractive.

The sorts of people who like to build networks are those who enjoy being
part of the process.  Not necessarily just by building a node according to
someone else's preconceived notion, but by having a real say in the future
direction of the network.  We need to attract these sorts of people most of
all, and we will do it by letting them make their own decisions about how
they grow their patch of network.

Cheers,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-melbwireless at wireless.org.au 
> [mailto:owner-melbwireless at wireless.org.au] On Behalf Of 
> David Ashburner
> Sent: Wednesday, 9 November 2005 10:06 PM
> To: simon.hall at getstarted.com.au; melbwireless at wireless.org.au
> Subject: Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] infrastructure thoughts
> 
> 
> >Here is a link for some bgp/AS tools http://www.bgp4.as/tools
> >
> 
> I would have thought BGP is a little cumbersome to use in a 
> Mesh environment. OLSR ( http://www.olsr.org ) is probably a 
> better and easier choice if you are meshing up.
> 
> 
> >>> > On another note, would tunneling through peoples 
> broadband be out 
> >>> > of
> >>>the
> >>> > question to connect remote links?  Simple VPN I 
> suppose, but isn't
> >>>there
> >>> > some sort of encapsulation that you can use.
> >>>
> >>>The last time I mentioned this concept half of the old 
> boys club came 
> >>>out and said it wasn't wireless, so it wasn't on. :)
> >>
> 
> I don't remember it quite like that, haven't gone back 
> through the email archive but I thought the general concensus 
> was if you want to make a tunnel then go for it. A lot of bla 
> bla about wireless links would be better if you could  but as 
> you say, If you have a remote node that can't connect any 
> other way why would you no make a tunnel. In the end you are 
> extending the coverage of the network so that should be a good thing.
> 
> I think the bigger problem is identifying someone who is 
> prepared to be the other end of your tunnel.
> 
> 
> 
> 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