[Battlemesh] Seems that we can "close" battlemesh open80211s :P

[L. Aaron Kaplan]

On Sep 2, 2011, at 7:49 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:

>> But I'm not really sure about that, anybody has experimented with it?
> 
> No, but I've read a draft of the spec.
> 
> It's using an interesting hybrid routing protocol, partly based on AODV
> and partly on naïve tree distribution protocols.  It uses a metric that
> takes both packet loss and link rate into account, which is pretty cool.
> 
> On the other hand, it's a very complex protocol.  In the best tradition
> of IEEE 802.11, it includes a large number of optional features that
> vendors are not going to implement (including an optional routing
> protocol based on OLSR (!) and the option to temporarily switch
> frequencies in order to avoid interference (!!)).  I'm pretty positive
> that independent implementations won't interoperate initially, just like
> it happened with original (pre-B) IEEE 802.11.
> 
> In short, it'll take some time to mature, but it's likely to be pretty
> cool.
> 

AFAIK that is *exactly* what the companies involved in the standardization of 802.11s 
had in mind: 
make a standard that is not interoperable because they are currently already selling 
lots of "mesh" equipment (and therefore create a lock-in situation for the buyer). 

Anyway, that was my impression.

Juliusz: which version of the draft do you have?

a.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2213 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://ml.ninux.org/pipermail/battlemesh/attachments/20110904/1a8bd0f4/attachment-0003.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 243 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://ml.ninux.org/pipermail/battlemesh/attachments/20110904/1a8bd0f4/attachment-0001.sig>