On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 07:32:36AM -0500, Giannis Galanis wrote:
I believe our current salut/avahi issues are described in the following
points:
1. I was under the impression that when a peer switches channels it sends a
goodbye signal. And in fact only anorthodoxically removed peers(after
I don't think avahi gets a chance to send goodbye packets. More
specifically i
don't think NM or other mechanism actually tell avahi: Oh we're going to
leave
the network, please say goodbye and then give it a chance to actually send
the
necessary goodbyes
Yes. The warning (we're changing
I believe our current salut/avahi issues are described in the following
points:
1. I was under the impression that when a peer switches channels it sends
a goodbye signal. And in fact only anorthodoxically removed peers(after
crashes/poweroffs by pressing the button etc) would delay to
2. It takes up to 10min for avahi even to detect the inactivity of a
peer.
i.e. If an XOs switches channels, for up to 10min avahi wont even
know(it
used to be 1-2min).
Is this with or without the patch from bug #6162 ? If without, then the
time it
takes avahi to discover it should
On Jan 31, 2008 10:54 AM, Ricardo Carrano [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I believe our current salut/avahi issues are described in the following
points:
1. I was under the impression that when a peer switches channels it
sends a goodbye signal. And in fact only anorthodoxically removed
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 01:21:29AM -0500, Giannis Galanis wrote:
The results were:
1. The xmas tree effect is still here.
i.e. XOs occasionally vanish/reappear in differenent positions.
This is because of the following:
When the avahi cache includes several inactive/departed/(reported as
Sjoerd,
Could you please develop this? What do you mean by wireless firmware not
being
good enough to do actual multicast routing.?
Thanks,
Ricardo Carrano
Well both avahi and salut are quite capable. I'm not sure why it has such a
bad
reputation with you. Probably because your only seeing it
Sjoerd Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/30/2008 06:45:48 AM:
Well both avahi and salut are quite capable. I'm not sure why it hassuch
a bad
reputation with you. Probably because your only seeing it in a very very
exterme network and because there seems to be a lot of FUD about mdns
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 09:27:06AM -0500, Michail Bletsas wrote:
Sjoerd Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/30/2008 06:45:48 AM:
Well both avahi and salut are quite capable. I'm not sure why it hassuch
a bad
reputation with you. Probably because your only seeing it in a very very
On Jan 30, 2008, at 5:12 PM, Michail Bletsas wrote:
For completely serverless environments, what we have is invaluable.
The
fact that it doesn't scale to large numbers of nodes doesn't make it
useless.
I'm similarly confused about people's insistence on a rigid dichotomy
between the
Sjoerd Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/30/2008 10:46:33 AM:
I did some research into mesh routing protocols before starting the
salut muc
work. From the research papers i've seen, proper multicast routing seems
entirely viable. Traffic and memory overhead depend on the exact
Allow me to offer a perspective.
Last year I went to a trial school in Porto Alegre (South part of Brazil).
We grabbed five XOs and went to the housing project where the children live.
There, five kids could use the chat activity from their homes. Everyone was
very excited. The possibilities of
On Jan 30, 2008, at 6:34 PM, Ricardo Carrano wrote:
This is not a waste of our time.
Your reply is addressed to me, so I'm not sure whether you understood
me to be implying that the mesh is a waste of our time. I was trying
to say exactly the opposite.
--
Ivan Krstić [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
I got your point.
I apologize if my message was unclear on that.
2008/1/30 Ivan Krstić [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Jan 30, 2008, at 6:34 PM, Ricardo Carrano wrote:
This is not a waste of our time.
Your reply is addressed to me, so I'm not sure whether you understood
me to be implying that the
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 10:37:24AM -0200, Ricardo Carrano wrote:
Sjoerd,
Could you please develop this? What do you mean by wireless firmware not
being good enough to do actual multicast routing.?
Not good enough might be a bit harsh. What i mean is that as far as i know it
doesn't implement
Sjoerd,
I know the wikipedia list. Most papers (never implemented). And to my best
knowledge none implemented at layer 2.
On Jan 30, 2008 4:12 PM, Sjoerd Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 10:37:24AM -0200, Ricardo Carrano wrote:
Sjoerd,
Could you please develop
Like Michail and Ricardo said, going from a paper publication to an
actual implementation and also _testing_ of that implementation is a
very long way. The following factors need to be taken into account when
comparing various approaches to routing and presence in MANETs:
1) scalability: I
I understand that salut is not very popular lately since we are drifting
mostly towards infra mode.
Still, it is the preferable way for G1G1 laptops to talk to each other,
since there is no SS, and the public jabber is not guaranteed, or in the
future overcrowded.
I have conducted several tests
18 matches
Mail list logo
