Alternative to Create a new wireless network

Reuben K. Caron reuben at
Mon Dec 7 21:04:52 EST 2009


Since we've run into problems with creating ad-hocs networks on the XO  
1.5 (1) (2), I've been thinking about this functionality, the change  
in UI behavior and perhaps the decrease in usability and I don't like  
it. I believe it is clunky to have children create their own  
networks..Who designates who creates the network? Why do I have to  
join that network? Why can't I make my own network and have them join  
me, etc.. All of this is aside from the technical limitations of which  
channel does my network get created on. Does the user specify channels  
1, 6, or 11 when creating the network, or does the channel randomly  
get set? If randomly set, how do we avoid channel overlaps and  

To ease all of this and maintain a similar UI, what if we:

-Create three faux "Mesh Channel #" icons in the Network view
-When the child wants to join a mesh network they will select one of  
the networks
-Upon selection: the XO will: 1. Scan to see if that ad-hoc network  
already exists and 2. if it does not exist the XO will create the  
network allowing other children to join it.

The one pitfall of this idea, and I'm not sure how much of an issue  
this would be, is also the pitfall of ad-hoc networks...when the  
initiator of the ad-hoc network leaves the network fails. When the  
network has a respective name it is a bit more obvious when that  
person has left and the reason why the network has failed, this would  
not be the case given the anonymity of a "Mesh Network #." A more long  
term solution to this problem may be for the XO to sense the loss of  
the initiator and recreate the network. In this case, the first XO to  
sense the loss of the network after some period of time would check if  
another XO has already setup the network, if not the XO would create  
the network or join the new one if it already exists.

Aside from the one pitfall, I think it would be really beneficial to  
maintain the same UI and appearance of functionality. Further  
development in this area may also help us get MPP back, at least at  
the software level.

Your thoughts?



More information about the Devel mailing list