more on communication networks for humans (DAVE: no sense clutter IP with this)

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Mike O'Dell <mo () ccr org>
Date: September 10, 2005 8:16:36 PM EDT
To: Bob Frankston <Bob2-19-0501 () bobf frankston com>
Cc: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] communication networks for humans (DAVE: no sense  
clutter IP with this)


sigh.

it's not a "myth"

historically, changing frequencies in a radio was hard
because you wanted accuracy plus stability in the face of
very daunting operating requirements. yes, that part has
gotten worlds easier today, but it's still an important
design element.

the easiest way to compartment traffic was to use "channels".
and channelization is still the most common technique for
traffic partitioning, whether it's for load management or
traffic isolation.

guess what!  even 802.11[abg] has *channels*
so you do have to know which frequency to use
even for WiFi to work.

one cannot simply wish away the RF part of the problem
because different parts of the spectrum have vastly
different propagation characteristics. sometimes they
work in your favor, sometimes they do not,
and that "sometimes" may be very dependent on what
you are trying to do *right now*.

it's not like all the people who've been designing
radio communications systems all these years are
poor relations who just aren't smart enough to understand.
very far from it - there's been a huge amount of
effort expended on the design of dynamic radio systems
which is where the term Software Defined Radio got its start.

some of this stuff really is harder in real life than it is
on the whiteboard, and sometimes hard compromises are made.
and sometimes there are non-technical compromises that get
made as well. that's life in the real world.

the design space is larger and more complex than you
seem to imply, and the requirements are quite
complex.

I'm all for pursuing new architectural approaches
to the problem space - but starting with a choice of
today's au courant technology and then hammering to fit
is not obviously a winning strategy when solving very
complex problems.

    -mo



Bob Frankston wrote:

> All the more reason to have a common transport so we can approach such
> problems as social and protocol issues rather than creating the  
> myth that
> they are about choosing the right "frequency".


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/