On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Sridhar Dhanapalan
srid...@laptop.org.au wrote:
Ad-hoc connections only scale to a limited number of participants
before problems begin to occur.
The technically correct answer is it depends. And it is true, it
depends on a ton of factors.
As a rule of thumb,
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Martin Langhoff
martin.langh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Sridhar Dhanapalan
srid...@laptop.org.au wrote:
Ad-hoc connections only scale to a limited number of participants
before problems begin to occur.
The technically correct answer is
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Sameer Verma sve...@sfsu.edu wrote:
wiki.laptop.org/images/a/a3/Country_Technical_Support.pdf recommends
10 per channel on mesh. Given that 802.11s draft vs ad-hoc is really a
layer 2 issue, the numbers should be in that neighborhood?
I would fix that document
On 8 February 2012 23:23, Martin Langhoff martin.langh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Sridhar Dhanapalan
srid...@laptop.org.au wrote:
Ad-hoc connections only scale to a limited number of participants
before problems begin to occur.
The technically correct answer is it
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Sridhar Dhanapalan
srid...@laptop.org.au wrote:
Can we impose a hard limit on the number of clients to prevent too
many XOs connecting to a single ad-hoc session?
As James says... unfortunately no.
This is possible on many wireless access points. Why isn't it
On 9 February 2012 14:59, Martin Langhoff martin.langh...@gmail.com wrote:
More generally, when you have a central node (the AP) there's a node
that can carry the accounting, and has the authority to say who's
welcome and who's not.
I don't know if 802.11a/b/g/n has a mechanism to reject
sridhar wrote:
On 9 February 2012 14:59, Martin Langhoff martin.langh...@gmail.com wrote:
More generally, when you have a central node (the AP) there's a node
that can carry the accounting, and has the authority to say who's
welcome and who's not.
I don't know if 802.11a/b/g/n has
