Subject: RE: [dtn-interest] DTN versus Pacsat ?
From: Steven Berson <[email-masked]>
To: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: 31 Dec 2003 14:42:44 -0800
List-Id: Delay Tolerant Networking Interest List <dtn-interest.mailman.dtnrg.org>

Well, it is a little more complicated than that.  There is a program
called, uucp, but it does not actually implement the protocol, but
rather puts a request in a queue.  Another program, uucico, actually
contacts the remote machine.

I believe that uucp (etc) predated UUNET.  Uucp existed at least by the
late 70's and was used for Usenet as well as for e-mail.  ATT
(Berkeley?) had a whole set of mapping (routing) tools to help find
paths.  I think uucp ran over ATT's internal packet network as well as
over phone lines.

Steve

On Wed, 2003-12-31 at 13:27, Bob Braden wrote:
>   *> 
>   *> Fidonet is an entire network, complete with bundling protocols and addressing system. UUCP is a method of accessing the internet in an offline manner and contains some bundling protocols, but no unique addressing system, it uses the internet for that.  Presumably there is nothing stopping anybody setting up a clone of Fidonet using UUCP operating P2P mode.  But why bother, Internet already serves that purpose admirably.
>   *> 
> 
> I believe that UUCP is a protocol (or a program that implements that
> protocol, I guess I am not sure) for host-host communication across
> circuits.  It as used to build the UUNET network using phone lines.
> This happened before, or at least independently of, the early
> Internet.  CSNET started with UUNET, latyer converted to TCP/IP, and
> dragged UUNET in with them.  And UUCP did have its own addressing
> convention.
> 
> Bob Braden
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dtn-interest mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://mailman.dtnrg.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest

Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 13:27:43 -0800 (PST)
From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [dtn-interest] DTN versus Pacsat ?
Cc: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]

  *> 
  *> Fidonet is an entire network, complete with bundling protocols and addressing system. UUCP is a method of accessing the internet in an offline manner and contains some bundling protocols, but no unique addressing system, it uses the internet for that.  Presumably there is nothing stopping anybody setting up a clone of Fidonet using UUCP operating P2P mode.  But why bother, Internet already serves that purpose admirably.
  *> 

I believe that UUCP is a protocol (or a program that implements that
protocol, I guess I am not sure) for host-host communication across
circuits.  It as used to build the UUNET network using phone lines.
This happened before, or at least independently of, the early
Internet.  CSNET started with UUNET, latyer converted to TCP/IP, and
dragged UUNET in with them.  And UUCP did have its own addressing
convention.

Bob Braden

From: [email-masked]
To: "Vinton G. Cerf" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [dtn-interest] DTN versus Pacsat ?
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 18:21:26 +0000
Sender: [email-masked]

Indeed.  BTW Vinton I am aware that you are a leading authority in this field, whereas I am more of an amateur and enthusiast.

As you know, UUCP and Fidonet are similar but different.

Fidonet is an entire network, complete with bundling protocols and addressing system. UUCP is a method of accessing the internet in an offline manner and contains some bundling protocols, but no unique addressing system, it uses the internet for that.  Presumably there is nothing stopping anybody setting up a clone of Fidonet using UUCP operating P2P mode.  But why bother, Internet already serves that purpose admirably.

As you know, UUCP was unix only, until UUPC came along which for the first time allowed DOS users (like myself) to access the internet in an offline mode.   Previously I had to connect with a VT100 terminal emulator into a unix shell which cost me connect time charges.  I had an account on a UCSB.EDU system which I had to pay for.

This was before Linux, so I was restricted to DOS as the cheapest OS at the time.  My employer at that time had no network connectivity at all, so networking was purely a hobby which I funded out of my own pocket.   I enjoyed it immensely.

I was pretty much restricted to Fidonet until low cost ISPs started appearing in the early 1990's.  There were (and still are) gateways between Fidonet and Internet, but they were all long distance toll calls for me.

Best regards,

Charles F. Radley

> UUCP is another such early bundle-style protocol. I am familiar with AMSAT
> and with the AX.25 packet radio stuff. 
> 
> Vinton Cerf, SVP Technology Strategy, MCI
> 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
> Ashburn, VA 20147
> +1 703 886 1690, +1 703 886 0047 fax 
> [email-masked] 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] 
> > [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of 
> > [email-masked]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 12:24 PM
> > To: Vinton G. Cerf
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Subject: RE: [dtn-interest] DTN versus Pacsat ?
> > 
> > 
> > Greetings Vint,
> > 
> > Thanks for your reply, most interesting.   The Pacsat class 
> > of spacecraft are in asynchronous low Earth orbits, hence 
> > they are only above the horizon for a few minutes at a time.  
> >  Also, AFAIK there is no inter-spacecraft communications.   
> > Hence they employ a "store-and-forward" protocol, where 
> > messages are stored in a file server or bulletin board, and 

> > downloaded whenever they pass over a user station.   Each 
> > pass typically lasts a few minutes, where a burst of 
> > upload/download traffic occurs.
> > 
> > AFAIK all of the Amsat and Pacsat material is available open 
> > source, with the usual non-profit and Gnu type restrictions.  
> >  Here is a good place to start.
> > 
> > http://www.amsat.org/amsat/sats/nk6k/msatpro.html
> > 
> > =============================
> > 
> > Sidebar on Fidonet:-
> > 
> > I first encountered Store-and-forward bundling protocols in 
> > "Fidonet" in the late 1980's, with peer-to-peer systems using 
> > dial-up modems.  Fidonet still exists, but has declined 
> > because it operated in those dark distant days when long 
> > distance telephone calls were actually expensive, and 
> > internet was still in its infancy, so people (like me) tried 
> > to conserve their online time, and threw packets at each 
> > other via telephone lines overnight, when long distance rates 
> > were cheaper.
> > 
> > http://www.fidonet.org/
> > 

> > I was active on Fidonet in the late 1980's before I had my 
> > first internet account.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > 
> > Charles F. Radley
> > > Charles,
> > > 
> > > Do you have pointer to the PACSAT documentation?
> > > Note that satellite comms typically has only .5 sec round trip time 
> > > challenge while DTN has larger delays. Some of the problems of DTN 
> > > show up in LEO and MEO satellites because they are not synchronous.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > V
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Vinton Cerf, SVP Technology Strategy, MCI
> > > 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
> > > Ashburn, VA 20147
> > > +1 703 886 1690, +1 703 886 0047 fax
> > > [email-masked]
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [email-masked]
> > > > [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of 
> > > > [email-masked]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 4:53 PM
> > > > To: [email-masked]
> > > > Subject: [dtn-interest] DTN versus Pacsat ?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Greetings.
> > > > 

> > > > Can anybody comment on any significant similarities and/or 
> > > > differences between DTN and the store-and-forward packet 
> > protocols 
> > > > implemented on Pacsat and other amateur satellites ?
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > 
> > > > Charles F. Radley
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > dtn-interest mailing list
> > > > [email-masked]
> > > > http://mailman.dtnrg.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest
> > > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > dtn-interest mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > http://mailman.dtnrg.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest
> 

Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:40:07 -0500
From: "Vinton G. Cerf" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [dtn-interest] DTN versus Pacsat ?
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]

UUCP is another such early bundle-style protocol. I am familiar with AMSAT
and with the AX.25 packet radio stuff. 

Vinton Cerf, SVP Technology Strategy, MCI
22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
Ashburn, VA 20147
+1 703 886 1690, +1 703 886 0047 fax 
[email-masked] 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of 
> [email-masked]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 12:24 PM
> To: Vinton G. Cerf
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [dtn-interest] DTN versus Pacsat ?
> 
> 
> Greetings Vint,
> 
> Thanks for your reply, most interesting.   The Pacsat class 
> of spacecraft are in asynchronous low Earth orbits, hence 
> they are only above the horizon for a few minutes at a time.  
>  Also, AFAIK there is no inter-spacecraft communications.   
> Hence they employ a "store-and-forward" protocol, where 
> messages are stored in a file server or bulletin board, and 
> downloaded whenever they pass over a user station.   Each 
> pass typically lasts a few minutes, where a burst of 
> upload/download traffic occurs.
> 
> AFAIK all of the Amsat and Pacsat material is available open 
> source, with the usual non-profit and Gnu type restrictions.  
>  Here is a good place to start.
> 
> http://www.amsat.org/amsat/sats/nk6k/msatpro.html
> 
> =============================
> 
> Sidebar on Fidonet:-
> 
> I first encountered Store-and-forward bundling protocols in 
> "Fidonet" in the late 1980's, with peer-to-peer systems using 
> dial-up modems.  Fidonet still exists, but has declined 
> because it operated in those dark distant days when long 
> distance telephone calls were actually expensive, and 
> internet was still in its infancy, so people (like me) tried 
> to conserve their online time, and threw packets at each 
> other via telephone lines overnight, when long distance rates 
> were cheaper.
> 
> http://www.fidonet.org/
> 
> I was active on Fidonet in the late 1980's before I had my 
> first internet account.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Charles F. Radley
> > Charles,
> > 
> > Do you have pointer to the PACSAT documentation?
> > Note that satellite comms typically has only .5 sec round trip time 
> > challenge while DTN has larger delays. Some of the problems of DTN 
> > show up in LEO and MEO satellites because they are not synchronous.
> > 
> > 
> > V
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Vinton Cerf, SVP Technology Strategy, MCI
> > 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
> > Ashburn, VA 20147
> > +1 703 886 1690, +1 703 886 0047 fax
> > [email-masked]
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email-masked]
> > > [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of 
> > > [email-masked]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 4:53 PM
> > > To: [email-masked]
> > > Subject: [dtn-interest] DTN versus Pacsat ?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Greetings.
> > > 
> > > Can anybody comment on any significant similarities and/or 
> > > differences between DTN and the store-and-forward packet 
> protocols 
> > > implemented on Pacsat and other amateur satellites ?
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > 
> > > Charles F. Radley
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > dtn-interest mailing list
> > > [email-masked]
> > > http://mailman.dtnrg.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> dtn-interest mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://mailman.dtnrg.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest

From: [email-masked]
To: "Vinton G. Cerf" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [dtn-interest] DTN versus Pacsat ?
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:23:56 +0000
Sender: [email-masked]

Greetings Vint,

Thanks for your reply, most interesting.   The Pacsat class of spacecraft are in asynchronous low Earth orbits, hence they are only above the horizon for a few minutes at a time.   Also, AFAIK there is no inter-spacecraft communications.   Hence they employ a "store-and-forward" protocol, where messages are stored in a file server or bulletin board, and downloaded whenever they pass over a user station.   Each pass typically lasts a few minutes, where a burst of upload/download traffic occurs.

AFAIK all of the Amsat and Pacsat material is available open source, with the usual non-profit and Gnu type restrictions.   Here is a good place to start.

http://www.amsat.org/amsat/sats/nk6k/msatpro.html

=============================

Sidebar on Fidonet:-

I first encountered Store-and-forward bundling protocols in "Fidonet" in the late 1980's, with peer-to-peer systems using dial-up modems.  Fidonet still exists, but has declined because it operated in those dark distant days when long distance telephone calls were actually expensive, and internet was still in its infancy, so people (like me) tried to conserve their online time, and threw packets at each other via telephone lines overnight, when long distance rates were cheaper.

http://www.fidonet.org/

I was active on Fidonet in the late 1980's before I had my first internet account.

Best regards,

Charles F. Radley
> Charles,
> 
> Do you have pointer to the PACSAT documentation?
> Note that satellite comms typically has only .5 sec round trip time
> challenge while DTN has larger delays. Some of the problems of DTN show up
> in LEO and MEO satellites because they are not synchronous.
> 
> 
> V
> 
> 
> 
> Vinton Cerf, SVP Technology Strategy, MCI
> 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
> Ashburn, VA 20147
> +1 703 886 1690, +1 703 886 0047 fax 
> [email-masked] 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] 
> > [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of 
> > [email-masked]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 4:53 PM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: [dtn-interest] DTN versus Pacsat ?
> > 
> > 
> > Greetings.
> > 
> > Can anybody comment on any significant similarities and/or 
> > differences between DTN and the store-and-forward packet 
> > protocols implemented on Pacsat and other amateur satellites ?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Charles F. Radley
> > _______________________________________________
> > dtn-interest mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > http://mailman.dtnrg.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest
> 

Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:53:29 -0500
From: "Vinton G. Cerf" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [dtn-interest] DTN versus Pacsat ?
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]

Charles,

Do you have pointer to the PACSAT documentation?
Note that satellite comms typically has only .5 sec round trip time
challenge while DTN has larger delays. Some of the problems of DTN show up
in LEO and MEO satellites because they are not synchronous.

V

Vinton Cerf, SVP Technology Strategy, MCI
22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
Ashburn, VA 20147
+1 703 886 1690, +1 703 886 0047 fax 
[email-masked] 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of 
> [email-masked]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 4:53 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [dtn-interest] DTN versus Pacsat ?
> 
> 
> Greetings.
> 
> Can anybody comment on any significant similarities and/or 
> differences between DTN and the store-and-forward packet 
> protocols implemented on Pacsat and other amateur satellites ?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Charles F. Radley
> _______________________________________________
> dtn-interest mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://mailman.dtnrg.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest

From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:53:17 +0000
Subject: [dtn-interest] DTN versus Pacsat ?
Sender: [email-masked]

Greetings.

Can anybody comment on any significant similarities and/or differences between DTN and the store-and-forward packet protocols implemented on Pacsat and other amateur satellites ?

Thanks,

Charles F. Radley

From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:33:34 +0000
Subject: [dtn-interest] Re: dtn-interest digest, Vol 1 #131 - 2 msgs
Sender: [email-masked]

Fascinating Captain.

Because I used a  *.doc  extension for my error log attachment, either my Mozilla or the DTN mailier incorrectly assumed it was an MS word attachment, and bin coded the content.

In fact it was a simple ascii text file.   I do not have MS word on my linux box, so far as I know Microsoft has yet to produce a linux version of any MSoffice product, and I am not holding my breath for that :-)

I was unable to paste it into the main body of the message, I tried several times, but it would not paste into my Mozilla editor neither using the drop down nor the accelerator keys.

Oh well, it is my first time on list, before long I expect I will be an expert in all the new little quirks and idiosynchroncies of the mailing system between here and there.

Best regards,

Charles F. Radley

> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:01:15 -0500
> From: charles radley <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [dtn-interest] [Fwd: problems building dtn]
> 
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------070901030905080502090500
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 
> 
> 
> --------------070901030905080502090500
> Content-Type: application/msword;
>  name="builderrors.doc"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
> Content-Disposition: inline;
>  filename="builderrors.doc"
> 
> W2NmcmpsckBrNmxpbnV4IGR0bl0kIApbY2ZyamxyQGs2bGludXggZHRuXSQgbWFrZSBhZ2Vu
> dAptYWtlIC1DICBsaWJkdG4gYWxsCm1ha2VbMV06IEVudGVyaW5nIGRpcmVjdG9yeSBgL2hv

Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 23:55:56 -0500
From: Manikantan Ramadas <[email-masked]>
To: charles radley <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] [Fwd: problems building dtn]
Sender: [email-masked]

--R3G7APHDIzY6R/pk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Well, the "berkeley stuff" is the Berkeley DB Database that the bundling
code in the tar ball uses. You may get it from www.sleepycat.com. Make
sure you get Berkeley DB 4.0.14, because that is the version the bundling
code in the tar ball requires. You need to install the Database before
installing the DTN code.

- Mani.

PS : Could you please send the error log in plain text format next time?

On Sun, Dec 21, 2003 at 04:01:15PM -0500, charles radley wrote:
>=20

> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:57:48 -0500
> From: charles radley <[email-masked]>
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i586; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826
> X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
> To:  [email-masked]
> Subject: problems building dtn
>=20
>=20
> Greetings,
>=20
> FYI I just requested to join the DTN email list.
>=20
> I tried to build the DTN from the source in the tarball, but it failed=20
> rather miserably.
>=20
> I am using Mandrake linux.
>=20
> Attached is a file with all the error messages.
>=20
> I have never done a build of anything on this system, so it is probably=
=20
> not configured correctly.
>=20
> I read something about "berkley stuff" needing to be in some place, but=
=20
> I do not know even if the "Berkley stuff" is installed on this system.
>=20
> Any pointers would be appreciated.
>=20
> Best regards,
>=20
> Charles F. Radley
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20

--=20
"A man is but the product of his thoughts.=20
 What he thinks, he becomes."	 - Mahatma Gandhi
____________________________________________________________________
 =20
* Manikantan Ramadas * IRG, OU * http://irg.cs.ohiou.edu/~mramadas *
____________________________________________________________________

--R3G7APHDIzY6R/pk
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

--R3G7APHDIzY6R/pk--

Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:01:15 -0500
From: charles radley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [dtn-interest] [Fwd: problems building dtn]
Sender: [email-masked]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070901030905080502090500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

--------------070901030905080502090500
Content-Type: application/msword;
 name="builderrors.doc"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline;
 filename="builderrors.doc"

--------------070901030905080502090500
Content-Type: message/rfc822;
 name="problems building dtn"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
 filename="problems building dtn"

Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:57:48 -0500
From: charles radley <[email-masked]>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i586; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To:  [email-masked]
Subject: problems building dtn
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
 boundary="------------050108020605040803000605"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------050108020605040803000605
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Greetings,

FYI I just requested to join the DTN email list.

I tried to build the DTN from the source in the tarball, but it failed 
rather miserably.

I am using Mandrake linux.

Attached is a file with all the error messages.

I have never done a build of anything on this system, so it is probably 
not configured correctly.

I read something about "berkley stuff" needing to be in some place, but 
I do not know even if the "Berkley stuff" is installed on this system.

Any pointers would be appreciated.

Best regards,

Charles F. Radley

--------------050108020605040803000605
Content-Type: application/msword;
 name="builderrors.doc"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline;
 filename="builderrors.doc"

--------------050108020605040803000605--

--------------070901030905080502090500--

Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:07:33 -0800
To: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
From: Scott Burleigh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] related and sorta interesting...
Cc: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]

At 11:55 AM 12/16/2003 +0900, Avri Doria wrote:

>On tisdag, dec 16, 2003, at 08:04 Asia/Seoul, Scott Burleigh wrote:
>
>>At 03:51 PM 12/12/2003 -0800, Kevin Fall wrote:
>>>http://www.wizzy.org.za/article/articlestatic/5/1/2/
>>
>>Yes, interesting.  Their "delayed dialup" is a scheduled contact system, 
>>and their "Wizzy digital courier" is the same sort of 
>>automated-sneakernet approach as Saaminet.
>
>one main difference being that we only intend to pass around the bundles 
>with the email or other info within  802.11 hotspots without human 
>intervention.
>
>also, most of these solutions, and there are many springing up all the 
>time, pretty much use a point to point, star or ring architecture.
>with the routing work we are doing, we are planning to route, again 
>without human intervention, the bundles from src to dst by passing them 
>from relay to relay, in a sparse intermittent mesh, as they encounter each 
>other within hotspots.

Of course that's right, what you're doing should be way more robust because 
you eliminate manual procedures altogether.  The "sneakernet" aspect I was 
mainly focusing on is the use of mechanical (in addition to radiant) 
transmission media -- a courier on a bicycle with a USB flash drive in his 
pocket, or a guy on a computer-equipped snowmobile.  I really admire this 
kind of ingenuity.

>but the ideas are similar  and what works in one location might be 
>applicable to several.  i just came back from the ICT for Development 
>Forum that was held with the WSIS in Geneva and talked to several NGO's 
>and others from Africa and Asia who were interested in working with us to 
>come up with a version of our scheme for their areas.  there is a lot of 
>opportunity for dtn on the other side of the digital divide.
>
>a.

Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:55:10 +0900
Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] related and sorta interesting...
From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]

On tisdag, dec 16, 2003, at 08:04 Asia/Seoul, Scott Burleigh wrote:

> At 03:51 PM 12/12/2003 -0800, Kevin Fall wrote:
>> http://www.wizzy.org.za/article/articlestatic/5/1/2/
>
> Yes, interesting.  Their "delayed dialup" is a scheduled contact 
> system, and their "Wizzy digital courier" is the same sort of 
> automated-sneakernet approach as Saaminet.
>

one main difference being that we only intend to pass around the 
bundles with the email or other info within  802.11 hotspots without 
human intervention.

also, most of these solutions, and there are many springing up all the 
time, pretty much use a point to point, star or ring architecture.  
with the routing work we are doing, we are planning to route, again 
without human intervention, the bundles from src to dst by passing them 
from relay to relay, in a sparse intermittent mesh, as they encounter 
each other within hotspots.

but the ideas are similar  and what works in one location might be 
applicable to several.  i just came back from the ICT for Development 
Forum that was held with the WSIS in Geneva and talked to several NGO's 
and others from Africa and Asia who were interested in working with us 
to come up with a version of our scheme for their areas.  there is a 
lot of opportunity for dtn on the other side of the digital divide.

a.

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:04:44 -0800
To: [email-masked]
From: Scott Burleigh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] related and sorta interesting...
Sender: [email-masked]

At 03:51 PM 12/12/2003 -0800, Kevin Fall wrote:
>http://www.wizzy.org.za/article/articlestatic/5/1/2/

Yes, interesting.  Their "delayed dialup" is a scheduled contact system, 
and their "Wizzy digital courier" is the same sort of automated-sneakernet 
approach as Saaminet. 

To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 15:51:17 -0800
From: Kevin Fall <[email-masked]>
Subject: [dtn-interest] related and sorta interesting...
Sender: [email-masked]

http://www.wizzy.org.za/article/articlestatic/5/1/2/