On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, S Woodside wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 06:03 PM, John Stracke wrote: > > > S Woodside wrote: > > > >> In addition I recently had to cope with the hassles of setting up an > >> H.323 connection (with ohphoneX) from behind a firewall at both ends > >> and immediately concluded that people on any kind of wireless mesh > >> that uses NAT are going to be severely limited since they aren't > >> truly a part of the internet. > > > > Right. The problem is that what I've seen in the past is that > > wireless-mesh proponents want to be able to do massive multihoming, > > with all participants with external links sharing those links, and all > > the traffic from the outside finding the shortest way in. I won't say > > it's impossible, but last I heard nobody knew how to do it; the route > > flap would be horrible. > > This is in fact one of the major goals, although I've never heard the > community wireless networking (CWN) folks express it so precisely. The > ability to be able to set up a wireless network and route internet > traffic through the mesh is strongly desired. I think that beyond that, > it is also desirable as well. > > Perhaps it is difficult but if solved and implemented it will allow > these types of networks to be a part of the internet, not just "on" the > internet ... creating a type of viral internet, in some sense, where > any new node becomes a beachhead for propagation of the internet into > new geographical areas. precisely... it spreads in a horizontal fashion. > > I understand that it's difficult, but it's also important. In addition, > there is a strong demand for last-mile/rural broadband around the > world. People are kludging together solutions that aren't scalable, > and/or are fragile, and/or are proprietary (e.g. RoamAd, etc. and a lot > of these so called "solutions" are really just vaporware right now). > > simon > > > sleekfreak pirate broadcast world tour 2002-3 live from los angeles http://sleekfreak.ath.cx