Greg, With all due respect, while you statements may be accurate for particular situations, but they are totally inaccurate for other situations.
These Generic statements do not hold true for today "Mesh" networks. e.g. You can deploy a Ruckus Wireless Mesh, (they now have both indoor & outdoor solution) where the radios self configure ...from the zone flex controller and you will not have any 'engineering', 'performance' or 'self-interference' , frequency-reuse issues.... Commercial grade mesh stuff is expensive, because of the 'secret sauce' they use to manage all of the above key items you pointed out.. Today, all of the folks who are deploying 'Mesh' topology are really trying to address some particular key set of challenges for that particular deployment...even if they don't realize it...As such there are solutions available that address such conditions.... However having a Mesh Network to solve all issues, in all conditions, for any circumstance...is wishful thinking. I completely agree with your last statements... and this is exactly what I was also trying to imply and suggest to Fred. To Fred.. I am not sure as to why you want to build a L2 network.....but as a 'mesh' and L2 tend not to be two things that go together well.... (sames challenges such as 'meshing' Ethernet switches..!).... would being able to do 'Ethernet Emulation' on IP.... e.g. EoIP or MPLS cover your network requirements ? Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet& Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, Fl 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: [email protected] On 6/18/2010 6:59 PM, Greg Ihnen wrote: > 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/ > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
