I can't think of a reason why anyone would deploy a layer 2 mesh with an Ethernet based medium (which wifi inherently is). Conventional wisdom in large scale sp architecture is to do anything of any size or complexity in layer 3. Layer 2 is really bad at scalability and really hard to troubleshoot compared to layer 3 as layer 2 "routing" is inherently quite "dumb".
If you need l2 functionality or protocol agnostic (although the latter is more of an academic feature than a practical benefit), then go l3 and tunnel. Most l2 services provided by service providers are, in the end, tunneled over a layer 3 infrastructure. Scalabiity and stability are the 2 concerns of a service provider, and both are very weak at layer 2 of any size.. -Clint Ricker On Jun 15, 2008, at 21:00, Matt Hardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 20:52 -0400, Matt Hardy wrote: > >> Yes a layer 2 mesh is protocol dependent, so you're stuck to IP >> traffic >> only. > > > > Oops... i mean, Layer 3 is protocol dependent :) > > > >> Also, when using a layer 3 mesh, roaming and convergence time can >> also >> increase (slowing things down) as when things move around, extra >> things >> have to happen... layer 3 stuff... OLSR tables updated, IPs >> updated, ARP >> entries updated, etc >> >> For instance, if a laptop migrates from one mesh AP to a different >> mesh >> AP in L3, they will be assigned an IP in a different subnet, while >> with >> a Layer 2 mesh, they can use the same IP. >> >> -Matt >> >> On Sat, 2008-06-14 at 10:08 -0700, Charles N Wyble wrote: >> >>> Rogelio wrote: >>>> Matt Hardy wrote: >>>> >>>>> I guess one question would be is it a Layer 2 or Layer 3 me >>>>> sh? That >>>>> would influence what options you have. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Good question. Thus far, I've only played with "layer 2" meshes. >>>> (MobileIP is, I believe, a "layer 3" one, right?) >>>> >>> >>> Yes that is correct. >>> >>>> (Layer 2 meshes, I have heard from others, are "better", but I'm >>>> not >>>> exactly sure why this is the case, to be honest.) >>>> >>> >>> Well. It's completely transparent and application/protocol >>> independent. >>> >>> Charles >>> >>> >>> >>> --- >>> --- >>> --- >>> --- >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>> --- >>> --- >>> --- >>> --- >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] >>> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> --- >> --- >> --- >> --- >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> --- >> --- >> --- >> --- >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > --- > --- > --- > --- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > --- > --- > --- > --- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
