At 09:01 99/12/3 +0100, you wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 01:26:57AM +0100, Kai Schulte wrote:
> >
> > That means the best idea would be some kind of distributed algorithm
> > that groups stations accordingly, maybe based on signal strength
> > measurements. One flaw of such a system would be that "everyone
> > else" is required to remain silent while the signal of a given
> > station is being monitored. Propagating the information who
> > should transmit a test signal at what time is not trivial,
> > especially if we also consider asymmetric links.
> >
> > Any ideas anyone?
> >
> > Kai
> >
> >
>
> Have you checked IEEE 802.11 standard for wireless networks?
> It solves problems you have noted. Why reinventing the wheel ?? :-))
>
> GL
>
> Ivo.
and also check http://www.drug.prug.or.jp/. drug means Digital Radio User's
Group :)
--
Kazuhiko Oho - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- RE: 10Mbit @ 10GHZ (was linux s... Michael Anderson
- Re: 10Mbit @ 10GHZ (was linux s... Richard Stearn
- Re: 10Mbit @ 10GHZ (was linux s... Hamish Moffatt
- Re: 10Mbit @ 10GHZ (was linux s... Geoff Blake
- Re: 10Mbit @ 10GHZ (was linux s... Richard Stearn
- Re: 10Mbit @ 10GHZ (was linux s... Greg Maxwell
- Re: 10Mbit @ 10GHZ (was linux s... Nate Bargmann
- Re: 10Mbit @ 10GHZ (was linux s... Tim Salo
- Re: 10Mbit @ 10GHZ (was linux s... Kai Schulte
- Re: 10Mbit @ 10GHZ (was linux s... Ivo Simicevic
- Re: media access (was 10Mbit @ ... Kazuhiko Oho
- Re: media access (was 10Mbit @ ... Kai Schulte
- Re: 10Mbit @ 10GHZ (was linux s... Richard Stearn
- Re: 10Mbit @ 10GHZ (was linux s... Kai Schulte
- Re: 10Mbit @ 10GHZ (was linux s... Ivo Simicevic
- Re: 10Mbit @ 10GHZ (was linux s... Richard Stearn
- Re: linux soundmodem over 9600 baud... Greg Maxwell
- Re: linux soundmodem over 9600 baud ? Thomas Sailer
- Re: linux soundmodem over 9600 baud ? Thomas Sailer
- How about, LINUX soundmodem at 9600 baud ? John Mock
