I haven't read your summary yet, but would like to chime in a bit on Mesh...

When the DoD developed TCP/IP, they built it to be robust under war-time conditions. This means fault tolerant, rerouting, change-over, change-back.

It would wonderful to hear the Mesh scientists (not sales people) describe what it is about mesh that gives it an edge over TCP/IP protocols, including their routing protocols.

I'll read your notes with some interest, in the hopes they'll shed some light on this fundemental question. Else, historically mesh has been a crapola of marketing hype, generalizations, and "I have it nailed" crap intended to fuel someone's new car or new house, new sales organization - and not provide any real customer/network operator benefit. In my humble opinion.

I personally have spoken to Microsoft's development leader on Mesh and had it explained that dozens of PhD's were working on Mesh solutions at MS. Ah, okay, I'm guess Motorola and 10 other companies are doing this as well.

Has anyone deployed a TCP/IP network that's fault tolerant - along the lines of the DoD's intent for the network? Using 'Mesh' or otherwise.

I'm all ear.

Matt Liotta wrote:
Attached is a quick rundown of basic mesh theory that I put together in light of the recent thread. It hasn't been peer reviewed or edited, which I would normally do before sharing publicly. But since I only wrote because of a thread on this list I figured I would just share it. Feel free to pick it apart.

I do want to point out a couple of things though. First, this was written in a generic way only covering mesh as a theory. As written it can be applied to various transport technologies from fiber to wireless; though I do provide an example using wireless P2P links. Applying mesh theory to wireless P2MP or ad-hoc networks would require special coverage.


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org


Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Reply via email to