>>> We have proposed an alternative to WiFi Ad Hoc called WiFi-Opp, which >>> is more flexible and doesn't require pairing (as in WiFi Direct which >>> we tested on Galaxy SII).
>> Very interesting work, although I'm not sure it's an alternative to >> ad-hoc. > Well, our goal is to allow "ad hoc" communications w/o WiFi ad hoc using > stock phones (non routed/jailbreaked) I understand that, and I think it's a great line of research. I'm only suggesting that you should use a more mellow formulation than "an alternative to WiFi Ad Hoc". > 90% of the flooding performances of what WiFi ad hoc would provide I'm probably just being slow, but once again: what is your measure of "flooding performance"? I cannot find it defined in either the paper or your previous mail. Also, the paper claims 70% and 20% if I read the graphs right, so where are the 90% and 10% figures coming from? > iPhones can connect to any already existing wifi ad hoc network...but > cannot create one if none exists in the first place. Ah, I see. That sucks. -- Juliusz _______________________________________________ Babel-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
