On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 03:27:22PM -0500, steve ulrich wrote:
> it might be pedantic - but i think it might be a good idea to get a
> firm grasp on what folks want to accomplish and what the deployment
> plans are before going down the path of selecting a routing protocol.
> there seems to be a solution looking for a problem discussion taking
> place. 
>  - if there's a desire for an overlay network it might be a good idea
>  to see if we can even create the wireless connectivity required to
>  support it.  an overlay exists independently of any other
>  infrastructure and could likely be handled by simple APs running
>  RIPv2.
>  - if there's a desire to interconnect with the existing Inet in
>  select locations then we need to engage in the discussion of protocol
>  selection and an analysis of the topology that we want to create.
> so - where do people want to put APs for the wireless links and where
> can we interconnect?
> -- 
> steve ulrich                       sulrich at botwerks.org
> PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7  AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC

<bold statement>
I don't think it matters what anyone wants.
</bold statement> <clarification>

Let's examine the 2 topics being discussed:

1) Overlay network
2) Hotspots

What does #1 provide?

a) A twin cities-wide network where content can be shared (such as the ftp
mirrors at real-time).
b) internet access via various access points that choose to have a default
gateway and a route to the 'net
c) hotspots that are not in-range of the rest of the wireless 
network, but are connected to it via tunnels over the internet (ie: GRE) 

What does #2 provide?

a) internet access via various access points that choose to have a default
gateway, and a route to the 'net
b) connectivity to other hotspots via tunnels over the internet (ie: GRE)

Now, what have people expressed a wish for (owner viewpoint):
1) reimbursement for cost of equipment (non profit)
2) profit (make money, isp-style)
3) connectivity to other nodes

What do users want:
1) connectivity
2) alternative to slow downloads over the 'net that are from sites that 
are local (ie: real-time's ftp mirror)


The /only/ conflict I see is where it comes to people profiting from their
access points, I can see where people would have an issue in the following

User connects to access point #1

Access point #1 connects to <TCWUG wireless network>

User gets on the net via gateway Z, which is charging User for bandwidth.

access point #1 feels used because he's not making any money off it.

Personally, I do not feel that there's any profit to be made from a network
like this, I've worked for an ISP that tried, they are now bankrupt.

I do believe it's completely possible to build the network, keep it stable,
and very usable. I see the network as an overlay network regardless of what
anyone calls it (car, truck, motorcycle.. they're all still an automobile)
different access points will decide, on their own, weither or not they're
going to allow internet access from their access point. There's no need
to discuss it, because it's not a group decision. The overlay vs. hotspot
question is moot, access points that wish to connect to each other will,
access points that either cannot, or will not, connect to the rest, won't.

Any questions, or something I missed? 

What I Think We Need To Figure Out:

Mobile IP
Global Routing Protocol (BGP?) 
Global Network Authentication (ie, nocatauth or something custom)

Matthew S. Hallacy                            FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified
http://www.poptix.net                           GPG public key 0x01938203