[MLB-WIRELESS] Network Structure - Was Re: Anyone know these people?

[Ryan Abbenhuys]

I mesh of omni's won't work.

Because everyone has to be on the same channel to talk, and eventually the
noise floor from adjacent nodes increases and the network bandwidth dies in
the ass.

The setup i've been bugging people with for ages is dedicated backbone links
using directional antennas. Then AP's can be hooked in where they're
appropriate and they aren't going to interfere with the backbone.  For this
to work best there has to be some form of channel management, really there
are only 3 channels we can use 1, 6 and 10 that don't overlap eachother.  We
also need to use appropriate antenna selections and polarities.  No point
someone using an omni for a point-to-point link, etc.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Flett" <conhoolio at hotmail.com>
To: "Melbourne Wireless Group" <melbwireless at wireless.org.au>
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] Network Structure - Was Re: Anyone know these
people?


> I think it could work like this, for a permanent infrastructure anyway.
>
> The highest highpoints are visible in most areas to most people.  These
are
> places such as the CBD, Mt Dandenong and so on.  The CWN should organise
and
> plan in such a way so that out in the suburbs, only certain nodes should
be
> allowed to link to the highest highpoints. These would be chosen
considering
> factors such as the node owner's location (high is good), setup and
> long-term commitment to the CWN.  Other nodes in the same suburb would not
> be allowed to link to the highest highpoints, but would be able to link to
> the suburban highpoint, and to each other.  Hopefully after a while the
> density of nodes in the suburbs would be high enough for a mesh to form,
> with lots of omni-to-omni links, greatly reducing the strain on the
backbone
> links.
>
> What about mobile nodes that don't have "high-linking" privileges but
can't
> see any other lower nodes?  As well as APs on higponts for the sole use of
> the suburban distributor nodes, we could also have open access APs up
there.
> These would be for those who are mobile and can't see a suburban
distributor
> node.
>
> Would the participants in the CWN accept this sort of order being imposed
on
> them?  Would it take some of the fun out of it?  This is where the
politics
> comes in. :)  The CWN would need a representitive governing body to be
able
> to administer this system.
>
> By having this system of restricted access APs on highpoints we have a
> guaranteed stable backbone over a wide area.   But long-term we can't rely
> on a "star" network topology; we need to create a mesh or grid of links.
> All the CWN participants need to play their part in increasing network
> connectivity.  Everyone needs to try to link to more than one other node.
>
> Dan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steven Haigh" <netwiz at optusnet.com.au>
> To: "Dan Flett" <conhoolio at hotmail.com>
> Cc: "Abe Orchard" <abeorch at ozemail.com>; "Melbourne Wireless Group"
> <melbwireless at wireless.org.au>
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 10:46 PM
> Subject: [MLB-WIRELESS] Network Structure - Was Re: Anyone know these
> people?
>
>
> > There's are 2 points to this.... Both totally contradict each other....
> >
> > 1) High points are great, they cover lots of people, and get some
> > networking happen very quickly, and also spur on growth of the CWN.
> > Links appear everywhere, and the network starts to grow *very* rapidly.
> > This model assumes most people hook up to high-point AP's... Which makes
> > sence considering they would cover more people...
> >
> > 2) Such as point 1, but the network will buckle under the strain and the
> > "fast" speeds of Wifi will peak out around 50k/sec at most - the network
> > folds in on itself, and thus becomes useless....
> >
> > Opinions? Comments? Facts? Disagree? Feel free to discuss :)
> >
> > Dan Flett wrote:
> >
> > >Hi Abe,
> > >
> > >In the organisation of a Melbourne community network I believe
higpoints
> are
> > >beneficial as backbone links but probably aren't well suited as general
> > >access APs.  I don't know how many clients an AP can support at any one
> time
> > >but it can't be that many. (Anyone?) I suppose you'd need to set up an
> > >organised distribution system whereby certain people out in the burbs
> link
> > >to the distant highpoints, and then distribute the network in their
local
> > >area.  Not that such a system precludes the suburbs linking to each
> other,
> > >rooftop to rooftop.
> > >
> > >Dan
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Abe Orchard" <abeorch at ozemail.com>
> > >To: "Melbourne Wireless Group" <melbwireless at wireless.org.au>
> > >Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 11:46 AM
> > >Subject: [MLB-WIRELESS] Re: Anyone know these people?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>I actually suspect that the network wouldn't really benefit from such
> > >>highpoints because they would be more suited to a centralised network
> > >>structure.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
> > >with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Signed,
> > Steven Haigh
> > http://wireless.org.au
> > (Visit https://wireless.org.au to install our Root Certificate.)
> >
> > You can lead a fool to wisdom but you can't make him think.
> > We have enough youth. What we need is a fountain of smart.
> > Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
> > with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message
> >
> >
>
> To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
> with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message
>


To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message