Sorry if I’m following this poorly, what exactly is still considered a mesh network? I thought a requirement of mesh networks was that they were non-hierarchical.
Do we still disagree about DNS being centralized? I don’t understand how “we” can put limits on American abuse (like those two examples) before a revolution, without switching to p2p alternatives.
I don’t understand how “we” can put limits on American abuse (like those two examples) before a revolution, without switching to p2p alternatives.
I can’t predict the future so I don’t know if we can restrict government medaling. I don’t know if what you are suggesting would necessarily work either though as these all require physical infrastructure. I am not saying it’s a bad idea, having corporation free networks would be sweet, but I don’t think it’s necessarily practical until after a revolution. Maybe we should focus on things like i2p and Tor instead?
I don’t think you are using the term p2p correctly either, that applies to protocols like bittorrent, not the kind of infrastructure we are talking about.
I don’t think being non-hierachical was ever a requirement for a mesh network. Look at products made for the home that use mesh technology. Those are still hierarchical. You almost never see a pure mesh network, normally mesh is just one part of a network. That doesn’t make it not a mesh network. I think you have been reading too much anarchist literature and not enough about networks.
Anything you build to replace the Internet is going to be hierarchical anyway. You can’t expect people’s client devices to act as routers if you want a stable network, so at least two categories of devices need to be involved. Probably a lot more categories are needed in practice.
Yes I disagree that DNS is centralized. The physical servers are spread across the world. For something to be centralized it needs to be only one. That’s my understanding of the word centralized.
Sorry if I’m following this poorly, what exactly is still considered a mesh network? I thought a requirement of mesh networks was that they were non-hierarchical.
Do we still disagree about DNS being centralized? I don’t understand how “we” can put limits on American abuse (like those two examples) before a revolution, without switching to p2p alternatives.
I can’t predict the future so I don’t know if we can restrict government medaling. I don’t know if what you are suggesting would necessarily work either though as these all require physical infrastructure. I am not saying it’s a bad idea, having corporation free networks would be sweet, but I don’t think it’s necessarily practical until after a revolution. Maybe we should focus on things like i2p and Tor instead?
I don’t think you are using the term p2p correctly either, that applies to protocols like bittorrent, not the kind of infrastructure we are talking about.
I don’t think being non-hierachical was ever a requirement for a mesh network. Look at products made for the home that use mesh technology. Those are still hierarchical. You almost never see a pure mesh network, normally mesh is just one part of a network. That doesn’t make it not a mesh network. I think you have been reading too much anarchist literature and not enough about networks.
Anything you build to replace the Internet is going to be hierarchical anyway. You can’t expect people’s client devices to act as routers if you want a stable network, so at least two categories of devices need to be involved. Probably a lot more categories are needed in practice.
Yes I disagree that DNS is centralized. The physical servers are spread across the world. For something to be centralized it needs to be only one. That’s my understanding of the word centralized.