Yesterday I had a discussion on Hacker News about whether pure crypto research was more likely to yield the positive changes I’d like in the world relative to advances in networking technology/protocols. I’m admittedly very biased toward networking in this argument, but I’m definitely open to the possibility that I’m wrong. The primary argument that most folks seemed to use was that “mesh doesn’t scale”. I’m still looking for more details on this assertion. If anyone has a good proof that “mesh doesn’t scale”, I’d love to hear it! It could save me a lot of wasted effort: I could abandon my quest to create a scalable grid/mesh network.
However, I realized in this discussion that most people automatically gravitated toward the “Mesh” name for this concept, rather than the “Grid” name I had previously came up with. So I just grabbed IsoMesh.net and IsoMesh.org to compare to the current IsoGrid.org (I don’t have IsoGrid.net).
What do you folks think? Let me know in the Forum or send me an email at Travis dot Martin at this domain.
By the way, I’m working next on a few minor updates to the IsoGrid Protocol Spec (based on learnings from trying to implement it). After that, I’ll be trying to write up a spec for a proposed route-learning mechanism and then a spec for a proposed Transport layer protocol to run on top of IsoGrid Protocol. Finally, I’ll be providing a lot more details on my proposal for how to bootstrap the IsoGrid in a world of ubiquitous TCP/IP.