On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 08:00:45AM +0100, Michael Blizek wrote: > Why do you want to do this? If you want to transmit any significant amount of
Cut-through routing as the crow flies. No global route tables. > data throught the mesh, you want to keep traffic as local as possible. Long Yes. > paths reduce throughput given a constant backbone bandwidth. If you keep > traffic local, you need not worry about how to find routes as badly either. > > Besides IPv6 is as broken as IPv4 in meshes. It provides zero security, I'm seeing a loophole in IPv6 by way of providing a local /64 which is effectively scratch space. This would prepare the way for geographic routing when the table space growth goes exponential again. > privacy and a single high-bandwidth application can slow everything down > extremely - and there is close to nothing you can do about this. The only > thing IPv6 does slightly better in meshes than IPv4 is automatic address Positioning information is a good source of automatic address assignment, and there's machinery (DAD) helping you to deal with rare collisions. > assignment - and even this probably is not that hard to do in IPv4 unless you > have extreme situations. IPv4 is dead, Jim. -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
