Thanks. Just a few more questions please. 1. If you use self-configuring gear doesn't that mean at least as far as the backhaul it's all on the same frequency? Wouldn't a system where you manually configure the backhaul legs to use separate frequencies reduce self-interference and allow avoidance of existing noise sources?
2. To have the system be self-healing as far as not having any customers lose connectivity due to a site failure mean that each customer would need to be able to hear more than one site. So the site density would have to be very high, which again would lead to self-interference, especially if the answer to question #1 above is that the mesh (backhaul) part of the network is all on the same frequency? 3. Don't these mesh networks fall into two categories - 1 free hobbyist best-effort networks using low end gear and modest performance and 2 commercial/industrial/public service/military networks using more powerful and expensive gear (with lower site density and probably even GPS sync) yielding much higher performance. Thanks! Greg On Jun 18, 2010, at 10:00 PM, L. Aaron Kaplan wrote: > > On Jun 18, 2010, at 7:21 PM, Greg Ihnen wrote: > >> Are you seeing benefits from the mesh approach that you wouldn't get from >> backhaul/APs? Doesn't the mesh gear usually have omni-directional antennas >> which can be problematic in an RF polluted environment. >> > > Yes, note two things please: > 1) you can of course also have a mesh approach with point2multipoint (and > even in infrastructure mode!) > 2) meshing on layer 3 at least gives you very fast reconfiguration when links > break. > So in most community networks in Europe that I know (including funkfeuer.at) > we use it actually as a fast redundant path selection > protocol. > (of course, we also actively develop and work on the olsr.org so we might one > day end up with a multipath routing meshing daemon. > this would be my dream) > > a. > > > >> Greg >> >> On Jun 18, 2010, at 6:41 PM, L. Aaron Kaplan wrote: >> >>> I agree with Faisal here... >>> >>> Our experience from the freifunk style networks in Europe is that a mix of >>> backbone/mesh nodes >>> and layer 3 meshing gets the job done. >>> Why layer 3? Because you don't want it all to be a single layer 2 broadcast >>> area :) >>> Your spectrum is just too valuable to send every broadcast message to all >>> others in the network. >>> Combine that with BGP/OSPF/whatever backbone links which are built point to >>> point (or point to a few multipoints) >>> with high capacity and you are set. >>> This way you can even have layer 2 meshes interoperating with different >>> meshes or OSPF/BGP/IS-IS/whatever protocol >>> backbone networks. >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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/
