Lonnie,
What I might not have made clear in previous posts, MESH is to broad a term
to discuss. The way most people would deploy MESH networks today, I feel is
flawed.
I'm referring to wireless with large number of hops between end to end
points to blanket an area.
However, I agree and its worth recognizing that some concepts that are used
for MESH are very worthly of recognition, and a step in the right direction
to improve and smarten routing for wireless network. A perfect example of
this is the open source core to Star-OS's MESH technology. The attempt is to
be able to make smarter decisions, not jsut on Up/Down or shortest path
conditions, but packet loss or latency of the link for example. OSPF, has
been a standard for years for automatic internal network routing, but it is
really inadequate for Wireless. It can't consider factors that are common to
wireless. For example a marginal link apposed to a down link. MESH is
working hard to improve intelligent routing based on QOS of links. So
Star-OS is nothing but a stronger product because it add the MESH features.
But I don't feel what it adds is "mesh". Mesh is not a protocol, its a
topology. MEsh can;t be added to a radio, a designer uses radios to deploy
MESHes. What Star-OS is really adding to its product line is SMARTER
routing that considers wireless conditions. These techniques, often
misinterpretted as MESH, can be very useful put to work for an engineered
network as well. I'd love to have a protocol that could determine which path
to take based on packet loss. But I'd deploy that on my master Super cell
router between backhauls, not deploy my network like a huge city mesh with
Radios every 600 feet to blanket an area using the technology.
I think people are confusing "MESH", a topology, with protocols utilized by
MESH. The protocols used in MESH are worthly. My larger point in previous
Emails is that the intelligence of these advance and ambitious new
protocols, still isn't good enough. It doesn't consider all the factors that
need to be considered to make the most intelligent decissions to replace the
network designer, who otherwise would make those decissions. Off the top of
my head I can't recall all the reason, but two might have been, the inabilty
to track several hops deep, or consider the dollar cost of the decission.
So in summary, "Progress" is not a "Solution". Progress is a science
project, and sometimes gets us closer to the goal, and often deserves an
award for its innovative ideas, but none the less, progress still is just
progress. When the end goal is reached, it becomes a solution.
My fear is that there are millions of combinations of things to consider to
determine the best path and how it will effect others. The inteligence to
compile the data to all the factors would be almost like a Neuro network,
(or what every that name is), and the processing power of rotuer CPE boards
available today, wouldn't have enough processing power to consider it all in
real time, at packet speed.
MESH protocols (not topology, unless you use Cisco's definition :-) has
promise, and I see it on the forefront for further innovation by innovators,
however, it has had promise for the last five years, and is no where near a
solution yet.
Just my 2 cents.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
Tom, what if you could take the Cell/Sector system and add some
routing that determined when a path had stopped and chose another one.
You have controlled this by your choice of units to make those cross
connections and really all that is happening is that the mesh routing
is constantly testing to see if it needs to try another route.
We used to do this manually and what a pain it was. This new routing
does what I used to do, except it does not sleep, have bathroom breaks
or go out for lunch. You can assign weights to connections and force
your chosen route to get used, at least until it goes down, which
hopefully never happens, but if and when it does you are covered with
your alternate path.
What is so terrible about that?
Lonnie
On 2/24/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brad,
I agree. Our downtown Mesh versus Cell/Sector trials proved exactly that.
Our tests showed that the cities like DC could be better served with
Cell/Sector models more effectively.
As a matter of fact, Alvarion product, appeared to be well equiped for
that
task.
I think projects like Phili's will bring a rude awakening. I can't prove
that, but there is no reason for me to.
Thats the point of modelling. So you can pre-dict BEFORE you spend.
Its the Muni's budget to pay for, to find the true answer, not mine.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Larson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:49 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
> Tom, IMHO mesh is great for lighting up downtown and city parks etc. but
> it
> has yet to prove itself in a large deployment with 1,000's of customers
> or
> 1,000's of nodes deployed. I too have first hand experience backhauling
> several mesh projects and the mesh edge so far has not been easy at all.
> Here in Northeast USA 15 mesh nodes per square miles doesn't even come
> close
> to what's needed. I've also found that implementing mesh in major metro
> areas, where there are already 1,000's of wifi access points, shrinks
> coverage models and can turn a well intentioned response to an RFP
> laughable. I believe Philadelphia projects 70k users in 5 years on 3900
> mesh
> nodes backhauled by Canopy. We'll see.
>
> I'd love to see a comparison of our BreezeAccess VL with one mile
> centers
> and our high powered DS11 on the edge in Anytown USA vs mesh. I'm
> working
> on
> a few of my guys to do such a test so stay tuned.
>
> What it comes down to is the fact that Matt may have just the right
> terrain
> and noise floor without the traffic that some of these larger projects
> will
> get hammered with so it works for his company. Mesh is a tool for a
> certain
> job just like other gear. But I don't believe mesh should be construed
> as
> broadband for the masses in any major metro area. Brad
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:28 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
>
>
> Matt,
>
> I think you are misinterpretting my comments. Don't read more in to them
> than are there.
> I am in no way attacking the validity of your experience or comments.
> I'm
> simply asking for more detail, so that I can learn from your experience.
>
> --
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
Lonnie Nunweiler
Valemount Networks Corporation
http://www.star-os.com/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
