On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Dave Howe wrote: > ah. Sorry, I don't think of dns as a name service (apart from once > removed) - we are talking DHCP or similar routable-address assignment.
You can use GPS as naming service (name collisions are then equivalent to physical space collisions). You can actually label the nodes automagically, once you know that it's a nearest-neighbour mesh spanned over patches of Earth surface. You can use signal strenght and relativistic ping to make mutual time of flight triangulation. It is a good idea to use a few GPS anchor nodes, so that all domains are consistent. > Indeed so - but of course the current internet *does* work that way, > so any new solution that advertises itself as "Free Internet access" > *must* fit into the current scheme or it is worthless. I think it can fit. > Unfortunately, such abstraction fails unless the *sender* knows how to > push the packet in the right direction, and each hop knows how to get > it a little nearer; this more or less requires that each node be given > a unique identifier compatable with the existing system, and given the No, an orthogonal identifier is sufficient. In fact, DNS loc would be a good start. The system can negotiate whatever routing method it uses. If the node doesn't understand geographic routing, it falls back to legacy methods. > existing system is still ipv4, there are problems.
