|
| ▲ | Gigachad 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Because they are toys. For real work it makes so much more sense to use the internet. With the new satellite tech you can reach the internet everywhere. Mesh radio is a fun way to chat with radio nerds in your area. Not a serious infrastructure. |
| |
| ▲ | KingMachiavelli 5 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | So what’s the real solution for when Starlink is too expensive and too high power? I really want to solution for remote mountaineering communication that’s not just GMRS. And what about remote weather sensors? I really don’t need a full internet connection just to send a tiny payload every 5 minutes. Meshtastic should be the obvious answer for this but in my limited experience the app(s) and code are buggy on even the most typical hardware. Wish it wasn’t the case but it is. | |
| ▲ | __MatrixMan__ 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | We may see a day when the internet is not available, or when interacting with it represents an unacceptable risk. It's a good idea to know how to set up your own. | | |
| ▲ | Gigachad 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | In that day whatever is jamming starlink will just jam mesh radio too. It'll likely be even easier. | | |
| ▲ | andwur 35 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | It's a different jamming scenario however. Starlink is comparatively centralised, and reliant on both terrestrial (ground stations) and satellite communication. While the terminals themselves are sparse and widely distributed, the backbone infrastructure is far less so. It's possible to target the satellites, ground stations and critical service dependencies (e.g. GPS) rather than needing to target the hundred of thousands/millions of terminals directly. The mesh networks are dealing with, by definition, a sparse and widely distributed set of devices which are independently configured and controlled, and in their current widely available form are only dealing with terrestrial communication. Without that point of centralisation you would need to focus on targetted regional jamming, as from a practical standpoint you cannot perform wideband RF jamming over an entire country - signal jammers don't scale that well, and geographic features come into play. As an example you might effectively block mesh networks from operating reliably in a given city, but if people were to move outside of that area then the mesh would operate again.
Geography is both a strength and a weakness here: a mountain range will impede direct communication with someone on the other side, but it will also have the same effect on jammers which will vastly increase the cost to deploy them in a ubiquitous fashion. | |
| ▲ | api 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That’s really the killer for survivalist mesh ideas. It’s trivially easy to jam, and if it’s open it’s also easy to DDOS. Jamming is done in military scenarios too, but in that case it’s limited by the fact that a jammer is a big transmitter painting itself with a big sign that says “fire missile here.” Civilian mesh doesn’t have that fallback. | | |
| ▲ | nostrademons 16 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Neglect is a bigger killer than active denial. If the Internet goes down it will likely be because a few execs decided to replace competent network admins with AI, or because all the competent network admins decided to quiet-quit because they aren't being paid jack compared to the folks hawking AI vaporware. | |
| ▲ | samplifier 34 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Battlestar Galactica opened my eyes to this problem more than electronic warfare in games of the day did. It's freaky (read: terrifying) that we're getting to a point that people are starting to take "embedded information (and decision)" systems serious enough to deploy them into meat space. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | nubinetwork 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > not a serious infrastructure I've been tinkering with the tech to make city-wide flrc meshes joined together over the internet, my estimates are that it should be at least able to support thousands of users per region. | |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | api 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It doesn't surprise me. This is a deep networking problem and very few CS people know anything about networking or how to design clean, fast, low-overhead network protocols and systems. If IP were designed today the packets would have 500+ bytes of plain text JSON as headers and the spec would support hundreds of extensions. |
| |
| ▲ | chocrates 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Is there a better designed mesh project like those two getting built that you know of? Reticulum? | | |
| ▲ | pocksuppet 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's a fundamentally really hard problem that looks easy on the surface. There is no solution that works well beyond the small scale. Many people have tried. It's the same kind of thing that draws people to try to write IPv8. | |
| ▲ | syntaxing 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah, openmanet with reticulum seems the most “professional” right now | | |
| |
| ▲ | kay_o 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Have you seen that IPvwhatever proposal from a handful of weeks back that has OAuth/OIDC in packet spec | | |
|
|
| ▲ | mschuster91 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Usability wise Meshcore is better due to static routing and enabling (far) longer paths. |