My example used wireless P2P links, which has no inherent weakness over
fiber P2P links from a topology point-of-view. It would appear you are
falling into the same trap as others by forcing mesh to be something it
is not. Mesh is just a network topology; no more, no less. Sure it is
possible to come up with specific examples of wireless-based mesh
networks being terrible ideas, but that doesn't mean there is anything
wrong with mesh itself. I would argue that in almost all cases the
topology is not what is at fault.
Jeromie Reeves wrote:
There is a very big difference from fiber mesh and wireless mesh.
Wireless is classicly a bunch of HDX links
where fiber is PtP links. Your example doesnt make it clear that the
difference is what cause's 802.11[a|b|g]
mesh "suck" and fiber/copper mesh's "not suck". The solution is multi
radio units that can select peers based
on more then just essid (channel, hop count to the edge, packet loss,
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: firstname.lastname@example.org