<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Polychronis Ypodimatopoulos <<a href="mailto:ypod@mit.edu">ypod@mit.edu</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">John Watlington wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
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 solely reactive). Perhaps that provides the adaptation necessary for the mesh to work ?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
If you refer to the hybrid routing protocol, it constructs a spanning tree of the whole mesh network rooted at some node. This is meant to be used in non-homogenous meshes (eg having an MPP or access point that acts as the root). So it may help in a school environment, but not in a simple mesh environment where all nodes are equal (if you attempt to build a different tree rooted at every node, you will probably face the wrath of a proactive protocol running on a mobile network - god save us from such a day ;-)<br>
</blockquote></div><br>Yes. That's the point. When you put XOs in a classroom and point them to a school server you are concentrating the traffic to a single node. It makes sense, imo, to make the school server the root of a tree. But only the server. Switching to infra also makes sense if you are most interested in the services provided by the school server or the internet.<br>
<br><br>