Actually, there are some brand-specific implementations, such as here: http://androidcommunity.com/aussie-develops-software-that-connects-phone-dir ectly-without-a-mobile-carrier-20110201/
http://www.mobiclue.com/symella-p2p-client-mobile.html http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/free+p2p+software+nokia+mobile/ As mentioned, there is a need for standards across all mobile device brands. >> Are you sure these standard organizations are your friend? I am not sure :-) Though to give due credit, the emerging RTC-Web work in the IETF and W3C to bring such as VoIP to the browser may be a very good start for the application layer. This is a most credible effort IMO led so far by Web people. Let's hope it stays that way. Henry On 2/2/11 12:39 AM, "Michael Blizek" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi! > > On 14:32 Tue 01 Feb , Henry Sinnreich wrote: >> These are useful thoughts at the p2p and application levels. >> There is more to it however: >> >> * Application level - as below, possibly >> * P2P layer - as below, possibly >> * UDP/IP/Data Link/Physical - is missing and here is what may work: >> >> All users to have at least their cell phones equipped with a global standard >> compliant p2p UA and all 5 + p2p layers of the IP protocol stack. Even if >> all the network infrastructure fails due to "main made" :-) or natural >> disasters, users within near wireless range could still communicate as long >> as their battery will last. If lucky, some of the peers may even have >> Internet connectivity, thus serving as gateway for other users, albeit with >> some congestion. >> >> The key is all mobile phones and other devices to communicate in a global >> standards compliant way. This would require all mobile phone and other >> device manufacturer to include such a global standard compliant capability. >> To specify the standard, at least the IEEE, IETF and W3C would need to >> cooperate for consistency across all the 6 layers, considering p2p as a >> (sub) layer as well. > > Something similar might not be that far away ;-) . But some details might > still turn out to be different than you think: > - Cell phones are constantly moving, which makes it harder to find routes than > if you use fixed routers. Batteries will not last even a day. If you have > the electricity to constantly recharge, you will likely also have the > electricity for fixed routers... > - Building meshes based on top of IP is IMHO a big mistake. Even if you would > be able to implement what you want, it would be slow and unstable. > - You may want to prefer using this network, even if the cell phone network is > available. > - Such a network has a wide variety of uses, not just for mobile phones. > >> Last but not least, to overcome the pushback from many parties who may not >> like it. > > There are many phones where you can build your own firmware images. If there > are fixes routers for forwarding the traffic, this should be enough to make > such an interface useful. If it is useful, manufactorers will either include > it > or be obsoleted. > >> The most promising approach would be to start such a project in academic >> and/or other R&D organizations and make it publicly available, as has >> happened for the early Internet. >> >> There are some IEEE papers on this topic, but accessible only for pay :-( > > Are you sure these standard organisations are your friend? > > -Michi _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
