From: Eugene Leitl <Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de>
>>On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Brian D Williams wrote:
>>I'm still reading and evaluating, but it's pretty clear that to
>>build anything of any size you need hardline connections. How big
>>it can get before routing updates eat the bandwidth is the
>>question, but still
>For years I keep harping about how currently used routing
>techniques are so very b0rken. Cellular wireless by its very
>nature is ideal for geodetic routing, which uses local-visibility
>routing tables strictly. Meaning, all the admin traffic is purely
>local, among immediate, and neighbours'-neighbour nodes. Meaning,
>the thing is infinitely scalable, as bits are sufficiently cheap
>to be able to address the entire visible universe at Planck scale,
>if you think you need to do that. Mapping the entire solar system
>down to cubic micron is a piece of cake.
Ah, so you're planning to use something other than IP since IP
doesn't work this way. My comments were based on Mobile Mesh which
uses both IP and standard routing.
>As a boon, if you use geographic coordinates for node addresses
>(obtained from connectivity constraints or plain old GPS), you
>can't get address collisions (no two nodes can occupy the same
>place at the same time), and you can use switching instead of
>routing, if you design the packet header layout right.
Yes, this confirms that you are planning to use something other
>> pretty darn interesting....
>> The big problem with ethernet is the distance limitation.
>High-quality links are local by nature. This doesn't translate
>into latency, if you use (eventually purely photonical)
>cut-through switching as described above, using store-and-forward
Yes, since you're not using IP or ethernet their limitations are
not your problem.
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:42 MDT