Brian, Exactly my thoughts. And I'm with you in the "show me" category. Brad
-----Original Message----- From: Brian Webster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 11:01 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory Jack, Let me jump in with some more thoughts on wireless mesh: I agree with you that RF engineering and RF limitations are not being fully considered in most mesh deployments. Most mesh designs I have seen are theory based and assume the full use of the unlicensed spectrum at hand. This will never be the case and therefore limits the overall capacity. I saw an RFP from the city of Miami Beach and they had done a pre-survey of the city and found the noise floor at 2.4 GHz at -70 db in most areas. Now how is one going to deploy a mesh network with the ability to overcome that? Typical answer is build more nodes closer to each other so these PDAs and laptops get enough signal. This ignores the fact that all of these close spaced nodes then create more noise for each other because they are mounted at a height where they hear each other. In high density nodes even having 2 hops will bring these networks to their knees. There is not enough spectrum to make it work and be able to load the network up. An 802.11b based system can not deal with the hidden node problem effectively enough. Even if you do have all the internode traffic on other frequencies at the high density placement required in most cities, the spectrum limits are still a big issue to have the channels to link all the nodes. I would still like to hear of a mesh network from any manufacturer that has been deployed and has a high density of users that are the kids of today. I want to see what bit torrent, VOIP and audio streaming do to a mesh in multiple hops. While we can make the argument that those services can be limited, that is only a band-aid approach as today's society is going to expect to be able to use these services in one form or another, it may take a while but it will be necessary. The cellular companies are already creating the expectation for this kids to be able to audio stream on demand. If someone has knowledge of a loaded mesh network please let me know. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of mesh and wish it could work and want to see it work. It's just that I've been in ham radio since 1989 and was in to the packet radio technology, we as hams built networks where we dealt with all of these issues (I know it was only 1200 baud but the problems remain). There are two major problems in mesh from my viewpoint. One, if you have a carrier sense based collision avoidance system, you always have limited capacity because only one radio can talk at a time (part of the HDX problem). Two, if you do not have a carrier sense based system then you can overcome noise with a stronger signal. This causes cell site shrinkage or breathing and changes the coverage area. Most people deal with this by building transmitters closer to each other, problem is that there is limited unlicensed spectrum which is not enough room for most systems to deal with this. I really would like to see mesh work and hope to be proven wrong. There is a lot of promise in mesh implementations out there but until I have seen them under residential internet use loads I remain skeptical. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com <http://www.wirelessmapping.com> -----Original Message----- From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 1:46 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory Jeromie, You raise some good points... and here are some more differences between Matt's fully-meshed WIRED network example and the real-world conditions under which WIRELESS mesh networks are so often deployed today. 1) REROUTING - Only a node failure or a high peak traffic load would normally force a routing path change on a fiber/copper network. On a wireless mesh, routing path changes will also result from interference caused by other same-network nodes, interference from other networks, and interference from other wireless non-network sources. Routing path changes will also be caused by the movement of obstructions and other rf-reflective objects such as trees and vehicles. 2. CAPACITY - Fiber/copper networks typically start out with high-capacity (compared to wireless) full-duplex links. Wireless mesh networks start out with low-capacity half-duplex links. 3. CONNECTIVITY - Fiber/copper mesh network nodes have two or more paths to other nodes. "Real-world" wireless mesh networks may contain nodes that, in some cases (the traditional "mesh" definition not withstanding) only have a path to one other node. For example, obstructions may block paths to all but one (or even no) other nodes. 4. ENGINEERING - Fiber/copper mesh networks are typically properly engineered for traffic-carrying capacity, QoS, latency, etc. "Real-world" wireless mesh networks are typically deployed in near-total ignorance of the Layer 1 (wireless layer) conditions. That's the great attraction (IMHO) of muni-mesh networking today. These networks are thrown up in the belief that they don't need any Layer 1 design or engineering expertise and that this will allow for quick, widespread deployment. Last time I looked however, there was still "no free lunch". I predict that the muni mesh networks that are "thrown up" today (Philadelphia will be a prime example, unless it's re-engineered correctly) will fail and fail miserably to meet the high expectations that have been raised like free or low-cost broadband for all. In addition, muni mesh networks today typically lack adequate traffic engineering and performance testing under load. The way that muni networks are being marketed today will likely lead to a black eye for the entire license-free wireless broadband industry within 18 to 24 months. I'm not saying that wireless mesh networks should never be used. There are certain (obstructed, short-link, low capacity) environments where they will be the best, most economical solution. I'm just saying that the false claims and marketing hype surrounding MOST (and let me repeat, MOST) of today's mesh networking claims, particularly mesh network nodes that contain just a single 2.4 GHz radio are going to come back to bite both the vendors and the cities that deploy these networks without sufficient wireless knowledge in the false belief that wireless mesh networks are just "plug-and-play". Sorry about my rant, but other than a few responsible multiple-radio/multiple-band mesh equipment vendors, the current mesh marketing/hype environment is in a word - disgraceful. jack 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) > > Jeromie > > 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. >> >> -Matt > > > -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com **************************************************************************** ******** This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. **************************************************************************** ******** This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com **************************************************************************** ******** This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. **************************************************************************** ******** -- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
