Alternative to Create a new wireless network

Reuben K. Caron reuben at
Mon Dec 7 21:29:20 EST 2009

On Dec 7, 2009, at 9:12 PM, John Watlington wrote:

> On Dec 7, 2009, at 9:04 PM, Reuben K. Caron wrote:
>> Daniel,
>> 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
>> interference.
>> 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.
> I don't understand why you say this.   AFAIK, this is not the expected
> behavior of ad-hoc networks.

Yes, of course, you are correct. I was confusing this with the "single- 
hop MPP mode" idea. So I guess there are no pitfalls to this..?

>> 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.
> There is no question that we want to avoid changes in this UI ---  
> this is
> already one of the more complex actions that we expect teachers/ 
> students
> to do.   Changing it mid-stream would be very confusing.

Absolutely, explaining the concept of joining Mesh Network # was  
complicated and confusing enough, it would be a shame to have to re- 
teach all of that.  Since you've corrected my pitfall, do you see any  
negatives to this?


More information about the Devel mailing list