[MLB-WIRELESS] meshing

[David Arnold]

-->"Clae" == Clae  <clae13 at yahoo.com> writes:

  Clae> So perhaps we are eventually looking at a two-tier network,
  Clae> one tier for simple clients (leaf nodes?)  and one for a
  Clae> robust, redundant mesh-like backbone network, as outlined in
  Clae> the SeattleWireless article.  This would provide for two
  Clae> levels of individual interest and involvement too - and
  Clae> investment.

right.  if you have a single card, it would be nice if you could find
someone with an upstream connection to point it at.  that's a sub-$500
investment for card and antenna.

if you want to act as a local hub/concentrator, you'll need at least
two cards, one omni and one directional antenna, and ideally even more
cards/antennae to get redundant upstream links (Seattle CxNodes have
only one upstream link, while a Bx has two or more).

  Clae> The only immediately obvious advantage that an amateur like me
  Clae> can see with a universal mesh network is that every time an
  Clae> antenna goes up, the network is extended.  And IIRC redundancy
  Clae> builds bandwidth?

i don't expect that this network will maintain strict central control,
so it's fairly likely that the edges will operate in this way until
there is sufficient local interest for one or more people to put up an
omni and join the backbone.


the real problems come with address allocation and routing, but we've
talked about this before ...




d

--
To unsubscribe, send mail to minordomo at melbwireless.dyndns.org with a subject of 'unsubscribe melbwireless'  
Archive at: http://melbwireless.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/minorweb.pl?A=LIST&L=melbwireless
IRC at: au.austnet.org #melb-wireless