<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi Craig,<br>
<br>
First, let's speak the same language.<br>
<br>
There's a lot of confusion around the word "MESH". I'm also not
sure why it's always capitalized. It's not an acronym as far as I
know. The term "mesh network" describes nothing more than the
logical topology of a network. There's a really good write-up on
this at the <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_networking">wikipedia
page</a>. I'm pretty sure that when you (and others on this
email) use the phrase "mesh network" it is not the wikipedia
definition you're intending. It means something different,
including:<br>
<br>
1) Using a common RF channel<br>
2) Promiscuous neighbor discovery + association<br>
3) Automatic IP configuration based on MAC<br>
4) Nearly open node authentication<br>
5) Omnidirectional operation<br>
6) <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_distribution_system">WDS</a>-style
operation<br>
<br>
These are the typical traits of a <a
href="http://seattlewireless.net/">SeattleWireless</a> style
mesh network (which, BTW, has been attempting to bootstrap itself
for the last 13 years). This type of definition of "mesh network"
is quite a different animal from the canonical mesh network
definition (wikipedia's, derived from network theory).<br>
<br>
The reason I want to make the distinction clear is that nearly all
large networks in the world are indeed mesh networks, but nearly
none of them possess the qualities of 1-6. So when I say
something like "<a href="https://www.hamwan.org/t/tiki-index.php">HamWAN</a>
is a mesh network", I want it to be clear that I'm referring to
the network topology only (the wikipedia definition). I'm not
sure what is the right word to describe the other type of network;
perhaps capitalizing all the letters is a good differentiator
after all. :)<br>
<br>
So, with the definitions out of the way, let me address your
actual email now that I can speak to it unambiguously.<br>
<br>
I concur that we all want to implement a mesh network, but I don't
think everyone wants to implement a MESH network. Phrasing the
problem of "how do we provide modern digital communications to the
ham community" in terms of "how do we implement a MESH network" is
putting the cart before the horse. Over the last 6 months, I've
been leading the HamWAN effort to create solutions to the first
question. We've made respectable progress on both the RF
engineering and networking fronts. We had a fully functional cell
site setup @ last weekend's Flea Market. This site design is
about to start rolling out to the real world.<br>
<br>
This transition in the project's status has allowed me to start
thinking about how HamWAN might integrate with other ham
networking efforts. We've had a good relationship with <a
href="http://www.bcwarn.net/intermapper/rf-map.html">BCWARN.net</a>
for the last few months, and integration with that network will be
simple. The physical links are already planned in fact! We're
both excited to make it happen and start exchanging traffic
internationally!<br>
<br>
The integration with NW-MESH efforts is far more challenging. In
fact, it may be outright impossible unless changes are made in the
NW-MESH design. From what I've seen, this difficulty of peering
will be present in all MESH networks. The problems range from
simple route exchange, to address space conflicts, to policy
propagation (access, QoS, filtering, etc). I don't even wanna
think about DNS. :P<br>
<br>
Having said all that, there is some value to HamWAN using a MeSh
(hybrid of mesh and MESH) layer. Traffic between nodes may flow
more optimally on the ground than through the mountain sites. A
nearby ham who doesn't want to invest in a dish might get on
HamWAN by MeShing with his neighbor. I'd be good for the health
of HamWAN to make use of these optimizations. But like I said, in
order for these routing decision to be made correctly and
automatically, NW-MESH designs will need to change.<br>
<br>
I'd like to invite you (in fact, all of you) to join the HamWAN
weekly meeting today @ 7PM. I'll re-send the connectivity details
on the mailing list (email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psdr-join@hamwan.org">psdr-join@hamwan.org</a>) an hour before
the meeting, but basically install <a
href="http://mumble.sourceforge.net/">Mumble</a> <a
href="http://mumble.info/snapshot/mumble-1.2.4-rc1-8-gb115a29.msi">1.2.4</a>+
(currently beta), and connect to BartK.us. Please use a headset
to avoid generating echoes.<br>
<br>
Craig, can you give me an idea of your skills? Perhaps you would
enjoy solving these types of problems as part of the HamWAN
development team? We run a tight ship with specific assignments
and weekly reporting. I believe this is the "small group of
experts" approach you were proposing. :)<br>
<br>
--Bart<br>
<br>
<br>
On 03/12/2013 12:09 PM, Craig B wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGv=kUyxV6MHfM_Gq7w8ER0ZO5ag5YWEc4ME1cQXo01eJVnq7w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>When I first heard about the MESH project from Daniel
Stevens (KL7WM) back in late fall 2012, the first question I
had for him was "what will it connect to?" Since then, as I
have become more involved I have started to formulate what I
think it could be connected to and how it could be used.</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>Based on what I have learned and seen to date, I see 3
tiers of network involved here. The backbone, which I see as
a long-haul that would be based on a region that is defined by
terrain and distance. The middle tier would be smaller and
could be between HAM towers or other "secondary" sites. The
3rd tier would be for the "neighborhood" or "home" MESHing
with WRT's and other low-power devices. In this type of
configuration, I see the backbone as being the one common
piece across regions while the secondary and tertiary tiers
could be specific to the 'regional' implementation. Each tier
would have to bridge from itself to the next level, which
seems to be reasonable where a given site could choose to
bridge by adding necessary hardware or remain remote. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What I would like to do is see if we can't get a written
network plan for a regional backbone and then any additional
tiers that need to be included in a good network design
document. I am a firm believer that it should be hardware
agnostic for the most part, although could provide a list of
acceptable components that have been shown or believe to be
the best hardware based on application. It would also dictate
how traffic might be handled moving up/down through the tiers,
possibly allowing for QoS or other transport methods.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As I am sure we all want to see a MESH network available to
all HAMs; given the area NW-MESH has been getting feedback on,
I think we need to start looking at how we connect them all
together. As such, in talking with Bob Rutherford, it seems
like the first step is to build out a plan that could be
presented to FWARC, Tukwila Radio Club, and EMCOMM (and other
clubs/groups). </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Since this is all great in theory, it seems the next step
is to secure funding and move it from paper to reality. Given
the real application of this MESH network for EMCOMM, and
their generally deep pockets, it seems like a great way to get
a backbone built.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If we are going to design this, I believe it needs to be
initially designed by a small group of network and radio
experts. Once an initial plan is cobbled together it could be
released to the larger MESH community for comments and
additions/subtractions, etc.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I am willing to take on leading this charge; however, I
will need a team of experts behind me helping lay the ground
work. My initial thought is to have something ready by mid or
late summer, given that we all have other priorities as well,
not adverse to taking longer if it means having a complete and
well planned out design.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Any thoughts on this?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>Craig</div>
<div>KF7LLA</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>