On Apr 24, 2008, at 2:26 AM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
Looking at trac, wireless is one of the biggest sources of bugs and
the
community can hardly do anything about it. Normally, somebody who
complains can be told to fix the code, but with a closed wireless
firmware, complaining is
Aaron Kaplan wrote:
there *are* open source layer 2 and layer 3 mesh software solutions out there.
Not to forget Open80211S.org (http://www.open80211s.org/).
--
Robert Withrow, R.W. Withrow Associates, Swampscott, MA, USA
___
Sugar mailing list
On Apr 27, 2008, at 8:53 PM, Robert Withrow wrote:
Aaron Kaplan wrote:
there *are* open source layer 2 and layer 3 mesh software
solutions out there.
Not to forget Open80211S.org (http://www.open80211s.org/).
yup!
what is the current status on that actually?
a.
On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 22:30 +0200, Aaron Kaplan wrote:
On Apr 27, 2008, at 8:53 PM, Robert Withrow wrote:
Aaron Kaplan wrote:
there *are* open source layer 2 and layer 3 mesh software
solutions out there.
Not to forget Open80211S.org (http://www.open80211s.org/).
yup!
what
what is the current status on that actually?
It provides all the basic stuff (peer link establishment, HWMP),
follows
latest 802.11s draft, and can be used with zd1211rw and b43
drivers. It
is also very easy to add support for other mac80211 drivers.
The major missing pieces now are
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Aaron Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ok, sounds nice. What is the maximum number of nodes that you tested with
it so far?
12
--
Luis Carlos Cobo Rus GnuPG ID: 44019B60
cozybit Inc.
___
Sugar mailing list
how much effort would it be to port it to mac80211?
12
___
Sugar mailing list
Sugar@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Aaron Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how much effort would it be to port it to mac80211?
I assume you mean using mac80211 in the XO. It is a significant
effort requiring driver and firmware changes, as the current card is
'fullmac' and mac80211 only works with
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 1:27 AM, John Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Take two such laptops.
Take them way out into the country so they can only communicate with
each other.
There are no access points. No laptop is acting as an access point, either.
Can those two laptops
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Gilmore wrote:
| The presence implementation only works on access points and on meshes --
| but not on non-meshed, ad-hoc 802.11. The vast majority of computers
| with 802.11 don't have mesh, but they would benefit from being able to
| see
On Apr 23, 2008, at 5:26 PM, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Gilmore wrote:
| The presence implementation only works on access points and on
meshes --
| but not on non-meshed, ad-hoc 802.11. The vast majority of
computers
| with 802.11
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Gilmore wrote:
| The IETF ZeroConf protocols provide for self-assignment of IP
| addresses in such a case. (The same thing happens if you plug two
| laptops together with a short Ethernet cable and no DHCP server.)
|
| Does the OLPC Presence
On 24.04.2008 02:00, Ricardo Carrano wrote:
(...)
This isn't what I was talking about. Forget about the mesh. Ban it
from your mind.
(...) the troublesome Mesh and just live with the 802.11b/g,
Ban (...) the troublesome Mesh you say. Sigh.
You forgot to quote the from your
13 matches
Mail list logo
