Il ven, 2003-06-06 alle 18:54, JJ Furman ha scritto: > Hello Mario, > > I have been planning to do something almost exactly like this. Using IPv6 > is smart because so much work has already been done for you.
> I've been working on a protocol that is a mix of greedy > geographic routing, link state and distance vector. > GPSR is a good starting point but probably not enough for the > kinds of topologies to be expected. > I agree with you and I will post more documentation about my algorithm in following days. > What function are you planning to use to map lat/long to IPv6 address? At > least two reasonable schemes have been put forth. I am currently designing > around the proposal by Hain: > http://www.globecom.net/ietf/draft/draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-02.html. It > makes a lot of sense because it leaves the bottom 64 bits free for the MAC > address making DHCP easier to implement. > http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~leonard/essay/geographic.html I have yet to decide, but 95% the first one. > > I read through your website. How do you plan to write this in Java? Sorry but... I have already written most of the program, look at CVS. > I'm a > big Java fan and long time programmer but I think it will be infeasible in > the long run because Java runs in user space, thus take a huge performance > hit. It might be possible to write all of the interrouter communication in > java but eventually the routing itself will probably have to be done in the > kernel. I am a fan of microkernels. Java is slow but now there is GCJ compiler that compiles directly to x86 code so I pratically use java as a better c++. Decisions are taken by java part, route add and delete is a matter of using kernel netlinks sockets. For a test I will fake them with system("iproute..."); calls, but I need someone that helps me with this. I suppose again that working in user space is not slow: look at zebra software, it does all calculations in user space, after that it calls kernel to set routes. The zebra hurd version define it self as a kernel part. > I was considering using the click router from MIT: > http://www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/click/ It's very modular and has built in > functions for traffic shaping, packet modification, IPv6, ethernet, etc and > its easy to write new modules. What do you think? > I have seen it and printed some documentation and studied it for a week. I liked the idea that with a switch you can recompile your code as a kernel module. But, I have then discarded it because it does not use at all kernel network part. It replaces all things, traffing shaping, etc. etc. So if they do not make a version for future kernels we are out of luck. > I've gotten quite a bit of resistance from people asking me why they would > want an alternative network. Since I can't come up with a way to convice > them, I have stopped trying. But even as a research only project I think > this is fascinating. It puts a whole new dimension to what is possible with > these little commodity wifi cards. > Yes, and I am researching it for my master thesis ;-) I think that, because wi-fi will get cheaper and cheaper in the future, more people will join: we are just at the beginning. And wireless will be useful in a lot of places (here in Italy adsl and other fast internet connections are not available in lot of places) > We can probably take this conversation offline but I wanted to echo my > interest to the group at large. Does anyone else share this vision of an > alternative network? Think it is useless or totally infeasible? > I am interested too! -- Mario Giammarco Via Calamandrei,5-48022 Lugo (RA) ITALY tel: +39054522965 cell: +39(0)3284146845 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
