Re: IPv6, interNAT, Wi-Fi (not mobile)

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