65-node simple mesh test (and counting... ;-)
wad at laptop.org
Tue May 13 10:59:28 EDT 2008
On May 12, 2008, at 3:31 PM, Ricardo Carrano wrote:
> > How does the collision model/scheme change between AP mode and
> > ad-hoc/mesh modes?
> As far as I can tell, it doesn't. 802.11s is interoperable with
> 802.11abg, which means that the same media access algorithms are used.
> At least part of our problem might be in the synchronized transmits
> occurring in our present 802.11s implementation of broadcast, which
> are probably killing whatever CA scheme 802.11abg dictate. See:
> which is trying to deal with low-level path discovery requests, which
> also use the broadcast mechanism.
> Yes, it is the same 802.11 DCF for both scenarios (infra and mesh).
> I would like to add to this discussion that sparse and dense mesh
> are too completely different animals. Most of the problems that we
> are trying to address now, are associated to the latter.
Certainly an interesting question. But is your answer really true ?
I'd argue that very little, if any, testing has been done
of the "large, yet sparse" mesh. Certainly none by OLPC.
Our problems certainly come from "large" meshes (more than
10-15 laptops in the mesh). What is your definition of sparse ?
> The more we dig into this, the more clear it gets that we need to
> Everything we do to increase coverage in a sparse mesh hurt us in a
> dense cloud. One example: broadcasting or multicasting at 1 or 2Mbps.
> Likewise, what we do to increase reliability, might actually
> decrease it. One example: the verbosity or redundancy of some of
> our protocols. And that's one of the strengths of Cerebro (less is
> So, as a side note: Treating the two animals as different will
> avoid some bites and scratches. ;-)
One interesting note is that the suggested routing algorithm for
802.11s is a combination
of reactive and proactive routing (unlike our current one, which is
Perhaps that provides the adaptation necessary for the mesh to work ?
More information about the Devel