Hi! Of course it can be solved with multiple radios, but that costs more. Also, even having two radios (2 and 5 GHz) for example is in fact not enough this days because you want AP to be on two bands as well, again on separate 5 GHz channels to not interfere with each other. Many clients can now use 5 GHz and to offload the 2.4 GHz spectrum we should be using that fact.
I am trying to explain that we have a problem that we have competing needs: - for end-users we have a need that they should roam in houses/spaces and not have interference between APs, so the best would be to have each AP on a separate channels to other devices, using wired connections, ideally if there they are on the same switch, they should just connect directly, otherwise over the VPN tunnel via servers - for mesh operation you would need nodes to be on the same channel so that they can communicate to each other, so those who do not have Internet uplink, can still connect to the rest of the network Now, the issue is that these two things are conflicting. But I think we should try to find a solution. So one option I see is that we have all nodes using different channels, to maximize the use of the spectrum, on both 2.4 and 5 GHz. They create both AP and ad-hoc networks, but they do not care that ad-hoc links are not established because they have an uplink. In the case that a node does not have an uplink, then it scans the surroundings and if it finds our mesh ad-hoc network, it chooses the same channel and connects with ad-hoc network to that one AP. Now, the question is to what if there are multiple nodes around, which channel this uplink-less node should pick and when it should switch it to another channel. (The same problem in fact have the APs with uplinks as well, but they could at least communicate with each other and decide which channel one should pick.) One more problem is what happens if multiple nodes lose uplinks. Then it could happen that half of them pick one channel and another the other channel and then you have a split. The other option I see is to have a centralized node planing system. When a user registers a new node they tell if the node will have an uplink or not. If it will have, then the system allocates to the node a channel which interferes the least. If it will not have, then user can pick which closest neighboor the node should connect to and central system selects the channel so that the link is possible. This second approach has a benefit that also backbone connections could be done through the same system. Mitar On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]> wrote: >> Your understanding is correct. And, as you said, I also think that the >> issue can only be solved by having multiple radios on a node. > > I see now. And agreed about multiple radios. > > -- Juliusz > > > > _______________________________________________ > Babel-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m _______________________________________________ Babel-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
