OT: cheap colo space in Southern Germany/Munich

[Scott Weeks]

My apologies for the late response, but I've been gone.  Likely
going off topic, but I wanted to ask the question while it is
being discussed.


--- gert at space.net wrote:
From: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 11:19:21AM -0800, Scott Weeks wrote:

>> There's lots of ideas how to improve the current Internet, and I have
>> seen actual workable approaches for geographic routing, but so far 
> ---------------------------------------
>
> What happens for nodes that have no geographical location 
> on the surface of the earth?

Same thing as today, I'd say - "they attach somewhere".  And "somewhere"
tends to be, uh, somewhere.
-------------------------------------------


This is what I meant.  Why impose an artificial boundary on the network?
That somewhere could be 'topologically somewhere' and does not have to
be physically somewhere with respect to the earth or any other physical
boundary.  Then the network is extensible to all sorts of design criteria.



--- eugen at leitl.org wrote:
From: Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org>
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 11:19:21AM -0800, Scott Weeks wrote:

> What happens for nodes that have no geographical location 
> on the surface of the earth?

Location is 3D, not just surface. You don't need to see 
the birds, mutual ToF triangulation or connectivity would do. 
WGS84 is just a nice, cheap hint.
-------------------------------------------------------

It's still earth-centric.  As I said above, why impose an 
artificial boundary?  Remove any bounds possible on the
network, so it can expand as necessary.

scott