Do we ever want to bind more than 8 multicast MAC addresses?

[Ricardo Carrano]

I have a feeling that the capability of participating in up to four
activities over a simple mesh scenario (no school server present) seems good
enough. But I may be wrong and we certainly don't have enough (if any) user
input to validate this (or not).

On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Benjamin M. Schwartz <
bmschwar at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ricardo Carrano wrote:
> | Assuming this is correct, than some questions follow.
> | - Is 4 a reasonable limit (is the XO capable of more in terms of
> processing
> | and memory?)
>
> The XO is definitely capable of more, especially for activities like Chat
> that require minimal CPU/RAM and are usually silent on the network.
>
> | - Is this a hard limit? How hard is to increase this number and what is
> the
> | compromise?
>
> I have an additional question:
> Could the firmware allow the driver to designate one or more of those
> slots as a trivial bitwise filter?  This would allow the driver to
> subscribe to one or more ranges of multicast addresses.  It would also
> provide graceful degradation if there are too many multicast addresses to
> fit: the surplus addresses can just be OR'd together into a filter.  There
> will be some false positives that will have to be screened out by the
> driver, but perhaps not too many.
>
> - --Ben
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFIB9GAUJT6e6HFtqQRAu8kAKCXPHKqWLm5Rk2pimt8+yg3sW/VKgCfTTjn
> eqzgVrWnAxfJ9wmOvkbMWzI=
> =h0XZ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20080417/06b0307a/attachment.html>