From The Register

MrPudding

Check this out..

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/59/28972.html

scojones

so let me get this straight - it looks for other broadband nodes and uses them. By node does it mean PC or does it mean broadband line?

bk

Originally posted by sjones
so let me get this straight - it looks for other broadband nodes and uses them. By node does it mean PC or does it mean broadband line?

I believe there are two type of nodes.

1) A PC with no bb connection.

2) A PC with a bb connection (DSL, leased libe) that it shares with type 1 above.

This means you might have 20 type 1 nodes and 5 type 2 nodes and the bb capacity is shared amongst all 25.

This is a really good idea and in conjunction with the fibre rings and ESB network, could be a runner in Ireland.

Maybe the likes of Irish Broadband, might think of reselling it.

BTW what is the license status of 802.11a and g in Ireland now?

According to this article on the reg, 802.11a has been opened up for public use in the UK.

acous

dunno about 'a' but 802.11g uses the same freqencies as 'b' (2.4ghz) so it is unlicenced spectrum.

iwb

I wonder if this could also work for dialup? When FRIACO is pushed through, if lots of people in a meshed area are dialled up together, the throughput would be fairly respectable. This would work in more rural areas where the options are very limited otherwise.

Ardmore

Originally posted by iwb
I wonder if this could also work for dialup? When FRIACO is pushed through, if lots of people in a meshed area are dialled up together, the throughput would be fairly respectable.

Let's see - 10 people with 33.6k connections - 336Kb/s!! Sounds great until you remember that you have to share it between the 10 people who are online, so you haven't gained anything!

iwb

Well, let's see now;
512kbps ADSL at a 24:1 contention ratio. That would mean 21.3kbps for each user. No?
So, how does this work? Well it works because not everyone will be maxing out their connection for very much of the time.
My point was that if a good few users were to log on in a meshed network and leave the connection on for two hours at a time, everyone using the connection would typically see a higher transfer rate. For those with no other option, it may be worth looking into.

Typical response for this forum really.

Oh and I do also realise that the implication for dialup will be different from my DSL example above. I just used it to illustrate the point that there is a contention ratio which is based on not everyone keeping a connection maxed constantly.

Ardmore

Originally posted by iwb
Well, let's see now;
512kbps ADSL at a 24:1 contention ratio. That would mean 21.3kbps for each user. No?

No is the correct answer! That contention ratio means that there's a 2MB line for each 100 users connected to the DSLAM. At any given time, you won't get all 100 users online. On the other hand, the only way to get an aggregate 2MB in your scenario is to have 70 users online at the same time (paying 70c a minute between them, at off peak rates!)

So, how does this work? Well it works because not everyone will be maxing out their connection for very much of the time.

Even just browsing the web will have you maxing out a dialup connection much of the time. Check it out yourself - the next time you go to disconnect after an hour online, check to see the bytecount before you hang up.

My point was that if a good few users were to log on in a meshed network and leave the connection on for two hours at a time, everyone using the connection would typically see a higher transfer rate.

I have my doubts. Unless you come up with a new Winsock that gives the "owner" of a specific modem immediate pre-emption, as soon as someone tries to download the latest service pack the guy who's just trying to read his email will get pissed off, and log out so that he can "get his own modem back".

For those with no other option, it may be worth looking into..

For those willing to pay 10c/minute for 336kbs, there's always another option........

Typical response for this forum really.

Yours or mine?

Oh and I do also realise that the implication for dialup will be different from my DSL example above. I just used it to illustrate the point that there is a contention ratio which is based on not everyone keeping a connection maxed constantly.

That's not what ADSL contention ratios are based on!

rob1891

For those willing to pay 10c/minute for 336kbs, there's always another option........

I believe friaco was mentioned somewhere, the idea being users agreed to leave their connections dialed in perhaps? edit: oh, that's not what was mentioned ... well I don't think it would be as good if connections would go up and down, is there a reason for them to go up and down when it is flat rate ... and you have a second line

It would be interesting to see if would work, could you spread a download over multiple connections seemlessly? That would be cool but pings would suck

rob1891

Unless you come up with a new Winsock that gives the "owner" of a specific modem immediate pre-emption

Sorry, I must make this point. The guy has developing linux based software that runs on a dedicated machine-come-set top box style thing .... so yes! Anything is possible

BSD definitly has QoS, I am sure linux can be configured to give local addresses (i.e. the PC you have connected behind the box) priority over resources.

iwb

Right, so, using the DSL example was bad as it isn't direct comparison but as I said, I do realise that.
As for your assumption that on a 56k connection it will be maxed out a lot of the time, it completely depends on the user. I know someone who plays a card game online every night for an hour and hardly registers on the 56k connection. Others will log on to check email, pick up a few and because they have a flat rate dialup product, will stay logged on while they two finger peck out a reply. Again, very little bandwidth used. The other consideration is that fewer again will max out the upload component so it will be available to the very few who might appreciate having it.
I am also assuming here that this technology can share the load intelligently rather than giving all the bandwidth to the first to use it until he is finished using it. If it doesn't work that way, it isn't a very mature technology yet but hopefully will gain that ability over time.
I meant your response, not mine.

Ardmore

Originally posted by rob1891
.. and you have a second line

And that's really the key issue. Anywhere that has a population density of two phone-line locations to may this feasible will have other, better options. If nothing else, the line rental and monthly FRIACO subs from 10 households (€500 a month!) would be better spent on a satellite connection.

iwb

So basically this particular technology won't work for dialup users then. Thanks for the clarification Ardmore.

Ardmore

Originally posted by rob1891
Sorry, I must make this point. The guy has developing linux based software that runs on a dedicated machine-come-set top box style thing .... so yes! Anything is possible

Except getting people to ditch windows so that someone else can leech off their internet connection!

Remember, we're talking about ordinary people here - the sort of people who use AOL in the US and the UK (but not here, 'cos AOL don't sell their service here).

BSD definitly has QoS, I am sure linux can be configured to give local addresses (i.e. the PC you have connected behind the box) priority over resources.

Oh, there's no question is that it's technically feasible. It's just not practical, because there's nowhere in Ireland that doesn't have some better options.

rob1891

It's not about ditching windows. The box is meant to be fire-and-forget. Sub £300 stg, you plug it in, connect your PC to it via ethernet and go. Use the geek features that you get from linux if you like .....

Granted, "pooling" modems is not the best concept but it's interesting to think these things through What of pooling faster connections to provide a minimal service for free, I would love to do such a thing, provided the QoS is there and I can get _my_ bandwidth when I need it. Distribution of the equipment then becomes a problem, with out a company or community organising things.

I hope people are encouraged by this to offer internet to their neighbours as is described in the reg' article (Priest & Parishioners). Community WANs are really exciting, perhaps this solution will be taken up by some of our own WAN groups!

Rob

Ardmore

Originally posted by rob1891
It's not about ditching windows. The box is meant to be fire-and-forget. Sub £300 stg, you plug it in, connect your PC to it via ethernet and go. Use the geek features that you get from linux if you like .....

I read the article, and bookmarked the site for future reference.
But that's not the scenario that this thread was talking about. It's one thing to set up a mesh network to share a single large pipe (or a couple of "medium sized ADSL lines). It's another thing to try to extend the concept to "optimizing" the collective dialup broadband of some set of users. That simpley wouldn't offer enough benefits to be cost effective. It's the equivalent of buying those single serving breakfast cereal boxes. It's always cheaper to buy in bulk :-)

Thinking along those lines simpley leads people away from the far more useful notion of pooling resources to get a single large pipe that they can then share using either a mesh network (if they want to ditch their existing operating systems) or a WiFi LAN, if they want to stick with the Windows and Macs.

rob1891

Yes you have convinced us that it would not work with a modem pool! The problem of developing a community of users will hold this back. I'm sure IrishWAN have considered mesh networks before, it would be interesting to see what their members think of this development as it is a _platform_independent_ solution :P

....

pooling resources to get a single large pipe that they can then share using either a mesh network (if they want to ditch their existing operating systems) or a WiFi LAN, if they want to stick with the Windows and Macs.

....

The software he has written is not designed to be run on your linux desktop machine. A desktop is not an ideal node as it will go up and down (and so too would coverage), few users would be willing to leave theirs on 24/7. It is to be run on a dedicated box, which he has made a reference design of. (The site has some photos of it, kinda neat small VCR sized thing, no moving parts via compact flash and ramdisk, v+ quiet ). That box is networked with whatever platform/OS you chose.

If you are a linux hacker you _could_ adapt the box to do more for you or build your own box, his design has a fully featured motherboard with tv and video out, sound, blah blah and its 500Mhz processor is slightly overrated for the routing task, additions have been made to allow the box run a basic browser and email client, but they are not supposed to replace your main desktop.

So, no OS change is involved, what runs on the box connecting you to the mesh is irrelevant, as it is dedicated to that one task

Rob