On Sun, 8 Jun 2008, C. Scott Ananian wrote: > To clarify, there are at least seven different directions to follow here: > a) telepathy-based collaboration on 802.11g networks > b) telepathy-with-cerebro-backend collaboration on 802.11g networks > c) cerebro-based collaboration in 802.11g networks. > d) 802.11s meshing in dense networks > e) 802.11s meshing in sparse (wide-area) networks > f) 802.11s Mesh Portal Point functionality (bridging a school 802.11g > network to a neighborhood 802.11s network) > g) OLSRd wide-area meshing on an 802.11g sparse (wide-area) network > h) plain ol' 802.11g in 100+ node schools
one more (which may be considered a varient of d) i) 802.11s meshing in bad RF environments this is where there are a small number of XO machines (so you don't have the 802.11s traffic issues), but where there are a large number of other 802.11 devices in the area a unofficial testbed for this would be to take a half dozen XO machines to a tech conference and try to run them. David Lang > Let me try to summarize current status on a few of these: > a) what we're currently deploying. believed working for ~20 > machines, but there are problem reports from the field. > b) collabora did some work to abstract out avahi, in theory the > groundwork is present for a cerebro backend. > c) Poly has demonstrated this with 70 laptops (limited only by the > size of his testbed); would require modification of activities. > d) nortel and our old mesh testbed looked at this, but I believe > Michalis' current opinion is that we should be using APs in this > scenario. So, not important? > e) No one looking at this. Poly has proposed a testbed for this. > f) yanni is looking at this? No test bed yet. > g) demonstrated in vienna, berlin, and athens with 600+, 800+, and > ~2000 nodes. Tradeoff: we can't route w/ CPU power turned off; > doesn't make progress towards getting 802.11s working for gen2, > probably requires further tuning for optimal performance in dense > networks. > h) Ricardo looking at this? No test bed that I know of. We know that > tweaks are required to get any 802.11x standard to work in a dense > scenario: media access protocols, probe request/response, beacon > tuning, etc. Marvell's done some of this tuning already, but we don't > have any local resources validating/verifying behavior. > > Which should we invest in? Which should we invest in most heavily? > Let the politicking commence. > --scott > > _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
