3 ms·

Mesh is a mess because meshes do not, in fact, work very well. You set up a mesh network to provide community internet access to an underserved community? 99.9

Mesh is a mess because meshes do not, in fact, work very well. You set up a mesh network to provide community internet access to an underserved community? 99.9% of traffic will be going to or from the node that connects to the internet at large. That means that although notionally adding a node to the network adds more bandwidth to the network, in practice that's only true if the new node happens to add extra bandwidth at a bottleneck. And if everyone aims their directional antennas at the egress node, to avoid this? You've just reinvented the centralised network.

contingencies 2y ago
Yeah, with current consumption being "everyone wants a global DNS and global network access" it's semi-pointless. But that's just a chicken and egg problem. All of Wikipedia, libgen, thingiverse, open source packages, etc. can be locally cached somewhat trivially. Most oldschool games will run P2P fine over arbitrary networks. That's quite powerful indeed. Now we just need some localtalk apps (reinvent 'talk' and BBSs and get people off Failbook) and there will be users. Also, piracy can be normalized in a social way instead of the current situation so people can actually, you know, discuss and appreciate art. A killer app may be sharing your CCTV with people, so the community as a whole can more readily resist bad actors. Perhaps a starter node could be a bit of media to pick up wirelessly on your way to your commute, so you have a kind of protected local distribution that's censorship free and surveillance costs substantially more than with centralized networks. Next, bring back Fidonet! Haha. Maybe one too many red wines...
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  If only the users were better and didn't want to stream video, or talk on Facebook, or video call each other, I could run a brilliant service!
  - rusk 2y ago
    It seems to me an approach would be to purposely deoptimize such a P2P network for these applications. Optimise for time-insensitive best effort delivery like the internet of old. Still plenty of applications can work to that model and it is “good enough” for doing business. Keep the bandwidth heavy applications on different channels with a different QoS guarantees and cost structure.
  - lobocinza 2y ago
    Just need a decentralized system where people could be rewarded financially for providing network access. Imagine a plug and play system where people with a satellite link could sell network access to their neighbors without a headache. Clients would just need to specify how much they are willing to pay for GB and nodes how much they want to get paid in their routers. There are many great things that could be done but AFAIK nobody is investing in making that a reality because governments and those that benefiting from the established status quo would definitely get in the way. So Starlink is the way as there's not much that governments can do to get in the way of thousands of satellites controlled by company outside their territory.
yencabulator 2y ago
I don't understand how anyone would expect to gain more bandwidth from a mesh. What you gain is coverage, as in distance from uplink. And at least with earlier meshes, you decrease bandwidth even if you use only one device, because now in laptop<--wifi-->AP<--mesh-->router both links compete for the same airtime.
- michaelt 2y ago
  > I don't understand how anyone would expect to gain more bandwidth from a mesh. Well, if you had an hourglass-shaped mesh network which was congested at the narrow point of the hourglass, and you recruited an extra node that gave you a second link across the narrow point, by adding the node you've doubled the bandwidth between the bulbs of the hourglass - and improved the redundancy. The problem is a lot of people imagine this will happen every time they add a node, making the whole thing infinitely scalable. Whereas the reality is any time you add a node that isn't crossing the narrow point of the hourglass, the congestion gets worse.
  - yencabulator 2y ago
    You're talking about a world of P2P and local use. The reality is that practically everyone is using "wifi mesh technology" as range extender for their own singular internet connection, and the internet connection is the bottleneck for practically everything.

contingencies 2y ago

Yeah, with current consumption being "everyone wants a global DNS and global network access" it's semi-pointless. But that's just a chicken and egg problem. All of Wikipedia, libgen, thingiverse, open source packages, etc. can be locally cached somewhat trivially. Most oldschool games will run P2P fine over arbitrary networks. That's quite powerful indeed. Now we just need some localtalk apps (reinvent 'talk' and BBSs and get people off Failbook) and there will be users. Also, piracy can be normalized in a social way instead of the current situation so people can actually, you know, discuss and appreciate art. A killer app may be sharing your CCTV with people, so the community as a whole can more readily resist bad actors. Perhaps a starter node could be a bit of media to pick up wirelessly on your way to your commute, so you have a kind of protected local distribution that's censorship free and surveillance costs substantially more than with centralized networks. Next, bring back Fidonet! Haha. Maybe one too many red wines...

robertlagrant 2y ago
If only the users were better and didn't want to stream video, or talk on Facebook, or video call each other, I could run a brilliant service!
- rusk 2y ago
  It seems to me an approach would be to purposely deoptimize such a P2P network for these applications. Optimise for time-insensitive best effort delivery like the internet of old. Still plenty of applications can work to that model and it is “good enough” for doing business. Keep the bandwidth heavy applications on different channels with a different QoS guarantees and cost structure.
- lobocinza 2y ago
  Just need a decentralized system where people could be rewarded financially for providing network access. Imagine a plug and play system where people with a satellite link could sell network access to their neighbors without a headache. Clients would just need to specify how much they are willing to pay for GB and nodes how much they want to get paid in their routers. There are many great things that could be done but AFAIK nobody is investing in making that a reality because governments and those that benefiting from the established status quo would definitely get in the way. So Starlink is the way as there's not much that governments can do to get in the way of thousands of satellites controlled by company outside their territory.

yencabulator 2y ago

I don't understand how anyone would expect to gain more bandwidth from a mesh. What you gain is coverage, as in distance from uplink. And at least with earlier meshes, you decrease bandwidth even if you use only one device, because now in laptop<--wifi-->AP<--mesh-->router both links compete for the same airtime.

michaelt 2y ago
> I don't understand how anyone would expect to gain more bandwidth from a mesh. Well, if you had an hourglass-shaped mesh network which was congested at the narrow point of the hourglass, and you recruited an extra node that gave you a second link across the narrow point, by adding the node you've doubled the bandwidth between the bulbs of the hourglass - and improved the redundancy. The problem is a lot of people imagine this will happen every time they add a node, making the whole thing infinitely scalable. Whereas the reality is any time you add a node that isn't crossing the narrow point of the hourglass, the congestion gets worse.
- yencabulator 2y ago
  You're talking about a world of P2P and local use. The reality is that practically everyone is using "wifi mesh technology" as range extender for their own singular internet connection, and the internet connection is the bottleneck for practically everything.