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, ect)


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:



Reply via email to