On Oct 30, 2009, at 3:32 PM, Sameer Verma wrote: > scenarios of a handful of XOs in the under-a-tree model
Sameer - Under a tree, using mesh networking is pointless (unless, I suppose, it is an extraordinarily large tree). Mesh networking allows packet forwarding from node A to node B, where such nodes cannot normally communicate with one another directly. Packets are forwarded through node C, visible to both A and B, or through multiple such intermediate nodes. If A can communicate with B, mesh is neither helpful nor advisable. It just confuses things, which is the problem we see with large numbers of children in a classroom. The mesh efforts to keep track of how to get from A to B can quickly saturate the RF spectrum with a lot of unhelpful traffic. I can't tell what it is you're doing at your meetings when your users "all use mesh". At a typical in-person meeting, you have a number of people using XOs all in the same room. Any XO in the room can communicate over WiFi directly with every other machine in the room (except in extremely unusual circumstances, or too many attendees wearing their tinfoil hats). There's no need for or value to mesh network - A doesn't need C to forward packets to B because A can see B directly as another ad hoc node. If there's an AP providing routing to the Internet or other external networks, there's no mesh required there, either, presuming that each XO can communicate with the AP directly. I can't answer your question about whether those scenarios use ad hoc networking because I don't quite see what it is the users are doing in those scenarios. What (lowercase) activity are users engaged in when you say they "all use mesh"? What do you think they would be unable to do if they all stopped using mesh? Thanks for the info. - Ed _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel