On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Daniel Drake <[email protected]> wrote: > I think both the beaconing and the forwarding will have a big effect > on the reliability of the network, but it still won't bring us to any > degree of reliability.
In first reading, t sounds self-contradictory -- but what you are saying is that it will get significantly worse. I haven't used ad-hoc much, and the bit I did was long ago -- hence my questions. > So, I don't think it's worth the effort. Not > that we seem to have any resources to do this anyway - or are you > volunteering? :) I have a ton on the XS side and related things. And my priority -- in as much as I can find time to hack on XO side is the XO-talks-to-XS. But I do think that we can flesh out WTH is the situation. > Plus for most of the time when the laptops are used in environments > where they are in a position to network with others, the children are > at school using infrastructure networks. That is in the dployments where you've been :-) >> IME, successful uses of under-a-tree are not using multi-hop -- at >> least not to any advantage. Why do you say 1-hop mesh would break >> significantly? > > For under a tree, it wouldn't. But in this scenario I feel like our > only option is either mesh as we have it, or manually created ad-hoc. Right -- and that is the scenario I want to ensure works well. > The other thing to note is that creating an ad-hoc network from sugar > is *really* easy. Try it. You don't even have to name the network. But then you have to associate from every other laptop, right? Maybe the laptops could auto-associate to ad-hoc beacons with names following a certain pattern? m -- [email protected] [email protected] -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
