[Testing] first play with new XO 1.5 machines

[Martin Langhoff]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Daniel Drake <dsd at laptop.org> wrote:
> I think both the beaconing and the forwarding will have a big effect
> on the reliability of the network, but it still won't bring us to any
> degree of reliability.

In first reading, t sounds self-contradictory -- but what you are
saying is that it will get significantly worse. I haven't used ad-hoc
much, and the bit I did was long ago -- hence my questions.

> So, I don't think it's worth the effort. Not
> that we seem to have any resources to do this anyway - or are you
> volunteering? :)

I have a ton on the XS side and related things. And my priority -- in
as much as I can find time to hack on XO side is the XO-talks-to-XS.

But I do think that we can flesh out WTH is the situation.

> Plus for most of the time when the laptops are used in environments
> where they are in a position to network with others, the children are
> at school using infrastructure networks.

That is in the dployments where you've been :-)

>> IME, successful uses of under-a-tree are not using multi-hop -- at
>> least not to any advantage. Why do you say 1-hop mesh would break
>> significantly?
>
> For under a tree, it wouldn't. But in this scenario I feel like our
> only option is either mesh as we have it, or manually created ad-hoc.

Right -- and that is the scenario I want to ensure works well.

> The other thing to note is that creating an ad-hoc network from sugar
> is *really* easy. Try it. You don't even have to name the network.

But then you have to associate from every other laptop, right?

Maybe the laptops could auto-associate to ad-hoc beacons with names
following a certain pattern?


m
-- 
 martin.langhoff at gmail.com
 martin at laptop.org -- School Server Architect
 - ask interesting questions
 - don't get distracted with shiny stuff  - working code first
 - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff