FreedomBox

JDH services jaydeeaich at gmail.com
Thu Mar 10 14:58:22 EST 2011


On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Chris Troutner
<Chris.Troutner at paccar.com> wrote:
> Wow! I’m sorry I missed that post. You raise some very good points. Here are
> a few of my own:
>
> 1. Thank you for pointing out the difficulties in building Disruption
> Tolerant Networks (DTNs). I don’t have a lot of in-depth knowledge about
> mesh networking, but I know enough that it is not the easiest thing in the
> world to pull off. I also had suspicions that the Freedombox people didn’t
> understand mesh networking and your explanation confirms my suspicions.
>
> In fact, the difficulties in mesh networks was why I thought of Qi and open
> hardware. I’m familiar with mesh networks from working with 8-bit
> microcontrollers and using Zigbee.

We would want a decentralized and ad hoc mesh network. and Zigbee is nether.

I don't know if you heard of the Automatic Identification System, it
is required by the International Convention for the Safety of Life at
Sea  to be fitted aboard international voyaging ships with gross
tonnage (GT) of 300 or more tons, and all passenger ships regardless
of size.

In order to ensure that the VHF transmissions of different
transponders do not occur at the same time, the signals are time
multiplexed using a technology called Self-Organized Time Division
Multiple Access (STDMA). The design of this technology is
patented[15], and whether this patent has been waived for use by SOLAS
vessels is a matter of debate between the manufacturers of AIS systems
and the patent holder.

SO we a pretty well screwed legally,  with government not wanting a
uncontrolled internet that could unset them and business wanting to
milk us out of every dollar.


> 2. It sounds like initial versions of the Freedombox are going to use plug
> computers with traditional 802.11 protocols for traditional networking,

IEEE 802.11s ? or just old fashioned Infrastructure mode?  Why aren't
they using Ad Hoc mode at the vary lest?

> which as you point out is very different from mesh networking and ultimately
> self-defeating. They recognize the flaw of using the existing network, but
> the argument is that they need to start somewhere in order to get the ball
> rolling.

They could start at www.dtnrg.org
instead of  1982 :P

There is the Unstated Internet Assumptions :
• End-to-end RTT is not terribly large – A few seconds at the most–
(window-based flow/congestion control works)
• Some path exists between endpoints – Routing finds single “best”
existing route
• E2E Reliability using ARQ works well – True for low loss rates
(under 2% or so)
• Packet switching is the right abstraction – Internet/IP makes packet
switching interoperable

And of course you have the web assumptions: Everyone has fat pipes and
unmetered service so you can use 32 bit integer to send a bool and
send all the useless data you want.

The first thing Freedombox should do it get red of there dependency on
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

That mean no IP allocations and no DNS.  that shouldn't be much  of a
problem with IPv6

> The advantage I see is that an open hardware company could work
> independently and take their knowledge of low-level mesh networking and work
> with the Freedombox Foundation to design an interface for connectivity to
> their system.

What open hardware company has any knowledge of low-level mesh networking?

Cozybit?
http://cozybit.com/our-projects/wireless-mesh-networks/o11s-mesh/

> statements as to the desire to use open source hardware. A company with
> expertise in low-level hardware could build the peripherals they need.
> Existing hardware companies have already expressed the desire to work with
> them and the whole business model/use case is based on high volumes.
> Additionally the public is behind it because Moglen was able to raise $60K
> in 5 days for the project. Sounds pretty synergistic to me.

Get one of the WiFi chip makers to let the OpenSource folk write that
software for the software defined radio. Oh that's right they keep
those bits closed source because it's illegal to allow people to
program software defined radios.

I should get hopeRF's RFM22B or maybe there new RFM50 and see how
close I can calculate the time between them.  but I'm too old and
decrepit to solder together Surface Mount Devices.  I keep burning
myself.


Sincerely,
Panthera Tigris Altaica




More information about the discussion mailing list


interactive