> can be accomodated. it will require that the overlay network run at least > an IGP routing protocol. IMO all the more reason to focus on hot spots > until there is a critical mass for the deployment of an overlay network. I would like to see the routing infrastructure more oriented towards routing packets efficently within the overlay network than optimised to get them to the internet. This allows users to negoiate with whomever for gateway services and I think there will be a much better balance in goals by emphasising that the overlay network is a alternative to copper for long haul transport across a metropolitan area and not a method for internet access. It means that the network might not be efficient for packets to get routed to the internet,though. I guess you can have both with the right mix of routing protocols, but I fear that the task of getting 'free' internet gateways will be much harder than just getting a overlay network up. I dont want to overdesign the network towards internet access and more towards users providing multiple services, one possibly being gateway access for other users for free, or for money, or for only people they know. My goal is to avoid copper in this case and to avoid costly montly fees that will cost more than contributions to the network over time. > actually - you don't need to use IPSec in order to give preferential > treatment to subscribers. this can be done by using the appropriate > queuing on the gw. the *BSDs have really nice tools for handling this How do you authenticate that queuing? I know about altq. Using static ip addresses isn't a good answer. Using MAC address mappings isn't either. However, this isn't a problem that needs to be answered for a good long time. I think AH will have a large potential in this network for authetication of network services in some cases.... -- Scott Dier <dieman at ringworld.org> http://www.ringworld.org/