The Super cell gives the ISP better central control and simplicity.

I don't believe an argument has been made to back up your above statement.

Trie I did not offer any backup data. But use your immagination. Its all in one place, easy to check, easy to document, easy to configure, easy to backup, etc.
What does mesh offer for better complete central management?

> I think you may be mixing too many arguments.

I may be mixing up typical deployment models using MESH with MESH Technology.
It also depends on your definition of MESH.
I admit, I made a generalization of a typical way MESH would be deployed, in my arguements. Deployed at street level, so many short hops were required to get coverage and get around NLOS obstacles, in a dense city environment. A network that made its own intelligent routing decissions, that may not always be the most intelligent compared to the human mind's decissions.

We are using a fully meshed MPLS network for our fiber backbone.

But is that really MESH? Technically you could call any multi-path routed network, MESH. I call my network a routed network using triangulation. But I would not call it MESH. But it very well could be considered similar to MESH.

Our choice of a mesh architecture for our fiber backbone has nothing to do with client reachability, politics, vendor's opinions, or anything else outside of practical requirements. Our network devices can and do make routing decisions on the fly that result in better throughput, lower latency, and better QoS than traditional star and ring architectures can achieve.

What criteria does your network OS sue to deterine routing changes? Measure highest packet loss? measure most amount of available bandwdith? Measure least amount of average bandwidth? Measure shortest path? Lowest latency? Lowest cost ($) transit or transport provider path? And how many can they consider togeather to make the best overall decission? I'd be interested in hearing more about what you are doing with MPLS in your design.

Also understand this is a Wireless list, not a fiber list. The design flaws of MESH over fiber (fast packet-loss less links) is a completely different animal with different challenges than MESH in Wireless.

I recognize that MESH is at a new stage of being more than just the implementation of RIP2. (Allthough early MESH was not much more than RIP). But I do not believe that computers make better decissions than engineers in all cases. I'm not convinced that has been accomplished yet.
However, I'm open to being proven wrong.
One of the reasons I am hesitant to MESH is that static data (non-MESH) is very easy to be managed by a Human, but its very difficult to manage dynamic data. Human mind can't make decissions on criteria it does not know about, because the known are not known. MESH takes away power from the engineer.

Understand that every major ISP is now either running a fully meshed MPLS network or has plans to migrate to one.

Thats a very bold statement, that is not true. However, that does not mean I do not recognize the benefits of the advanced design of MPLS networks.

Muni has two choices... Go Mesh, or partner with the Local WISP, that already own the rights to the roof tops and spectrum, toguarantee quick progress. There are some exceptions to this, as many Muni's control water towers, if they are strategically located.

I don't think Muni choices whatever they are should have anything to do with an technical discussion regarding the merits of mesh as a network architecture.

How do you figure? I sure hope the network design that was getting proposed, was something they would take the time to evaluate, in making their decissions. Anyone would look at there assets to locate gear, and consider that into their design. Thats step 1 of any wireless network design.

Tom DeReggi


WISPA Wireless List:



WISPA Wireless List:



Reply via email to