I agree with Jim. The reason why we developed OLSR and the its successor OLSRv2 was precisely that wireless environments are very different from wired. There are plenty of deployments of OLSR and several of OLSRv2, with up to several hundreds of wireless routers, so it is demonstrably working.
Regards Ulrich On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Jim Gettys <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 10/03/2011 03:32 PM, Tony Li wrote: > > On Oct 3, 2011, at 12:10 PM, Jim Gettys wrote: > > > >> My point was just that wireless has a set of challenges that all may not > >> be familiar with; knowing that may help point the discussion in fruitful > >> ways. Routing isn't my area of expertise (though I have scars on my > >> back from it in wireless...). > > > > Understood. > > > > Yes, wireless has some challenges and I've spent some time in that area. > > Certainly our standard protocols are not optimal for a purely wireless > > environment. > > > > However, for the generic, heterogenous networks that I would expect in the > > home, I would expect that the generic protocols would be the better overall > > approach. > > Having been seriously scarred by presuming that wireless was similar to > wired, I'm a believer in careful testing, rather than "expecting" that > something should work. Without "running code", demonstrably working, > I'll take nothing on faith in this area. > > Wireless != wired, is what I took away from that (painful) experience. > - Jim > > > > > Tony > > > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
