[HamWAN PSDR] Mesh backbone

[ZPO]

Quick note before I get dragged back into work....

Bart is correct that MESH has been overloaded as both a name for a
topology and a proper noun for a specific implementation of a MANET.
As long as we know what we're talking about, we can use either term.
We can call it MANET which is technically accurate, or MESH since that
is commonly used and understood.

I view the NW-MESH and HamWAN projects as complimentary.  HamWAN in
general and the PSDR component in particular makes an excellent
backbone transport network to move data around the wider area.
NW-MESH works well to cover the last mile.  Full bidirectional
interconnection of the networks has some significant challenges as
Bart states.  They are surmountable, but there are some issues to
address.  On the other hand, using the PSDR as a transport means for
interconnecting pockets of NW-MESH is not terribly difficult and can
be done rather simply.

I greatly prefer to keep the projects separate and have a
collaboration on the interface between the two efforts outside the
mainline work of either.  The projects have differing goals, differing
timelines, and differing concepts.  I'd like to see some more detail
from Bart on what he sees as the large issues with bidirectional
interconnection (I think I know most of them) or simply using the PSDR
as transport via tunneling between access nodes.

73-KY9K/Brian


On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Bart Kus <me at bartk.us> wrote:
> Hi Craig,
>
> First, let's speak the same language.
>
> There's a lot of confusion around the word "MESH".  I'm also not sure why
> it's always capitalized.  It's not an acronym as far as I know.  The term
> "mesh network" describes nothing more than the logical topology of a
> network.  There's a really good write-up on this at the wikipedia page.  I'm
> pretty sure that when you (and others on this email) use the phrase "mesh
> network" it is not the wikipedia definition you're intending.  It means
> something different, including:
>
> 1) Using a common RF channel
> 2) Promiscuous neighbor discovery + association
> 3) Automatic IP configuration based on MAC
> 4) Nearly open node authentication
> 5) Omnidirectional operation
> 6) WDS-style operation
>
> These are the typical traits of a SeattleWireless style mesh network (which,
> BTW, has been attempting to bootstrap itself for the last 13 years).  This
> type of definition of "mesh network" is quite a different animal from the
> canonical mesh network definition (wikipedia's, derived from network
> theory).
>
> The reason I want to make the distinction clear is that nearly all large
> networks in the world are indeed mesh networks, but nearly none of them
> possess the qualities of 1-6.  So when I say something like "HamWAN is a
> mesh network", I want it to be clear that I'm referring to the network
> topology only (the wikipedia definition).  I'm not sure what is the right
> word to describe the other type of network; perhaps capitalizing all the
> letters is a good differentiator after all.  :)
>
> So, with the definitions out of the way, let me address your actual email
> now that I can speak to it unambiguously.
>
> I concur that we all want to implement a mesh network, but I don't think
> everyone wants to implement a MESH network.  Phrasing the problem of "how do
> we provide modern digital communications to the ham community" in terms of
> "how do we implement a MESH network" is putting the cart before the horse.
> Over the last 6 months, I've been leading the HamWAN effort to create
> solutions to the first question.  We've made respectable progress on both
> the RF engineering and networking fronts.  We had a fully functional cell
> site setup @ last weekend's Flea Market.  This site design is about to start
> rolling out to the real world.
>
> This transition in the project's status has allowed me to start thinking
> about how HamWAN might integrate with other ham networking efforts.  We've
> had a good relationship with BCWARN.net for the last few months, and
> integration with that network will be simple.  The physical links are
> already planned in fact!  We're both excited to make it happen and start
> exchanging traffic internationally!
>
> The integration with NW-MESH efforts is far more challenging.  In fact, it
> may be outright impossible unless changes are made in the NW-MESH design.
> From what I've seen, this difficulty of peering will be present in all MESH
> networks.  The problems range from simple route exchange, to address space
> conflicts, to policy propagation (access, QoS, filtering, etc).  I don't
> even wanna think about DNS.  :P
>
> Having said all that, there is some value to HamWAN using a MeSh (hybrid of
> mesh and MESH) layer.  Traffic between nodes may flow more optimally on the
> ground than through the mountain sites.  A nearby ham who doesn't want to
> invest in a dish might get on HamWAN by MeShing with his neighbor.  I'd be
> good for the health of HamWAN to make use of these optimizations.  But like
> I said, in order for these routing decision to be made correctly and
> automatically, NW-MESH designs will need to change.
>
> I'd like to invite you (in fact, all of you) to join the HamWAN weekly
> meeting today @ 7PM.  I'll re-send the connectivity details on the mailing
> list (email: psdr-join at hamwan.org) an hour before the meeting, but basically
> install Mumble 1.2.4+ (currently beta), and connect to BartK.us.  Please use
> a headset to avoid generating echoes.
>
> Craig, can you give me an idea of your skills?  Perhaps you would enjoy
> solving these types of problems as part of the HamWAN development team?  We
> run a tight ship with specific assignments and weekly reporting.  I believe
> this is the "small group of experts" approach you were proposing.  :)
>
> --Bart
>
>
>
> On 03/12/2013 12:09 PM, Craig B wrote:
>
> When I first heard about the MESH project from Daniel Stevens (KL7WM) back
> in late fall 2012, the first question I had for him was "what will it
> connect to?"  Since then, as I have become more involved I have started to
> formulate what I think it could be connected to and how it could be used.
>
> Based on what I have learned and seen to date, I see 3 tiers of network
> involved here.  The backbone, which I see as a long-haul that would be based
> on a region that is defined by terrain and distance.  The middle tier would
> be smaller and could be between HAM towers or other "secondary" sites.  The
> 3rd tier would be for the "neighborhood" or "home" MESHing with WRT's and
> other low-power devices.  In this type of configuration, I see the backbone
> as being the one common piece across regions while the secondary and
> tertiary tiers could be specific to the 'regional' implementation.  Each
> tier would have to bridge from itself to the next level, which seems to be
> reasonable where a given site could choose to bridge by adding necessary
> hardware or remain remote.
>
> What I would like to do is see if we can't get a written network plan for a
> regional backbone and then any additional tiers that need to be included in
> a good network design document.  I am a firm believer that it should be
> hardware agnostic for the most part, although could provide a list of
> acceptable components that have been shown or believe to be the best
> hardware based on application.  It would also dictate how traffic might be
> handled moving up/down through the tiers, possibly allowing for QoS or other
> transport methods.
>
> As I am sure we all want to see a MESH network available to all HAMs; given
> the area NW-MESH has been getting feedback on, I think we need to start
> looking at how we connect them all together.  As such, in talking with Bob
> Rutherford, it seems like the first step is to build out a plan that could
> be presented to FWARC, Tukwila Radio Club, and EMCOMM (and other
> clubs/groups).
>
> Since this is all great in theory, it seems the next step is to secure
> funding and move it from paper to reality.  Given the real application of
> this MESH network for EMCOMM, and their generally deep pockets, it seems
> like a great way to get a backbone built.
>
> If we are going to design this, I believe it needs to be initially designed
> by a small group of network and radio experts.  Once an initial plan is
> cobbled together it could be released to the larger MESH community for
> comments and additions/subtractions, etc.
>
> I am willing to take on leading this charge; however, I will need a team of
> experts behind me helping lay the ground work.  My initial thought is to
> have something ready by mid or late summer, given that we all have other
> priorities as well, not adverse to taking longer if it means having a
> complete and well planned out design.
>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
> Thanks,
> Craig
> KF7LLA
>
>
>



-- 
----------
Society is, always has been, and always will be a structure for the
exploitation and oppression of the majority through systems of
political force dictated by an elite, enforced by thugs, uniformed or
not, and upheld by a willful ignorance and stupidity on the part of
the very majority whom the system oppresses.
- Richard K. Morgan
----------