Thank you. And yes I'm conflicted. Your summary and experience give a good overview and I'll point people to the wiki.laptop.org if they need more info.
Re: the XO 1.5 mesh implementation, compatibility with other XO 1.0 and an open source driver would be nice. Not that I plan on hacking it, as I'm not nearly that good, just sometimes around people who are rather good, and don't want to pass along bad info, if I can help it. On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Ed McNierney <e...@laptop.org> wrote: > I can't quite understand the desire for "definitive info" combined with your > disappointment that you don't have 1.5 "rumors". I don't think we need > rumors, and I and many other folks have been providing "definitive info" > about 1.5 for some time. And about the mesh, etc. You don't say what topic > it is on which you want the record set straight - if you need info, just > ask. > > http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XO-1.5 > http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Mesh_Network_Details > > - Ed > > P.S. The 802.11s draft standard has certainly been implemented on other > devices; no one suggests it is unique to the XO-1. What is "special" about > the XO-1, AFAIK, is its ability to continue to operate as a mesh node (or > MPP, mesh portal point) and forward packets while the laptop is otherwise > shut down. The fundamental limitations on the utility of 802.11s in typical > XO-1 scenarios, however, limit the value of this unique (I think) laptop > feature. > > On Oct 30, 2009, at 4:12 PM, DancesWithCars wrote: > >> I'd said to lots of people that the XO >> uses 802.11s mesh networking >> and eventually ran into someone rather >> geekie and otherwise impressively knowledgeable >> who corrected me that they didn't implement the >> whole standard (and people here say draft). >> >> The Marvel driver is said to be closed source, >> and RMS didn't like that, all of course >> rumor, and another rumor that the >> driver was open sourced. >> >> No rumors on the XO-1.5 yet, which >> is a shame. Even as hype and pre-release >> getting a buzz going would be nice. >> I don't have one, so can't test it to >> find out. Computer are supposed >> to be a Science, or so Knuth >> is credited by the ACM for >> helping to make that happen, >> documenting the fundamental >> algorithms and all... >> >> >> There are other mesh networking >> and someone once said to me that >> the 802.11s isn't that special >> that mesh OLR or somesuch >> protocols have been around for >> some time, but I'm guessing >> the XO is one of the bigger >> (~1 million XOs out there somewhere) >> publicly known implementations >> in that arena. >> >> So if someone / laptop.org >> wants to set the record straight >> and give definitive info, that would be >> great... >> >> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Ed McNierney <e...@laptop.org> wrote: >>> >>> 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> DancesWithCars >> leave the wolves behind ;-) > > -- DancesWithCars leave the wolves behind ;-) _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
