I am in agreement. Mesh is being abused by some people. Mesh is a routing mechanism in the same way that RIP and OSPF are routing mechanisms. You don't build a RIP or an OSPF, but rather you employ RIP or OSPF to organize and automate your routing. That is all we are doing with OLSR, just adding another routing option.
I think we'll start describing the new routing as WEB Routing, and let the MESH guys have their buzzwords. Lonnie On 2/27/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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" <firstname.lastname@example.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'" <email@example.com> > > 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: firstname.lastname@example.org > > > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: email@example.com > > > > 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: firstname.lastname@example.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: email@example.com > > 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: firstname.lastname@example.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/