Even "mesh" networks have to be engineered, especially if you want it to work well. One could just scatter mesh radios and that would give self-configuration and self-healing but the performance wouldn't be good.
To get "self-healing" you have to have redundancy and then you start getting into self-interference and frequency-reuse issues. The commercial grade mesh gear is better but quite expensive. Probably a better way would be to use a standard back haul with access point network and if you want redundancy put in extra back hauls and extra access points. The back hauls could switch over automatically, and the AP's would just need be commanded on or off. If the back hauls can be arranged such that they are in a ring topology, then you would have the back haul redundancy without a lot of extra hardware. Greg I'm not sure you really need the mesh topology. That's better suited to On Jun 18, 2010, at 6:12 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: > It's a question of semantics. I use "mesh" to refer to the topology, > and to having more radios than injection points. Yes, it needs to be > self-healing, and to some extent may be self-configuring, but that's > software. The radio links are all engineered; it's too difficult a > location to do otherwise. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
