[Battlemesh] Battlemesh v5 tests

Marek Lindner lindner_marek at yahoo.de
Mon Mar 12 16:59:09 CET 2012

On Monday, March 12, 2012 22:56:00 Clauz wrote:
> On 03/11/2012 12:37 PM, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> > Hi Clauz,
> >
> > 
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:03:08PM +0000, Clauz wrote:
> >> On 03/11/2012 10:59 AM, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> >> Hi, Antonio.
> >
> > 
> >
> > I didn't talk about moving NODES, but I talked about moving CLIENTS.
> >
> > 
> >
> > E.g. in your ninux network could be a normal user which, for some reason,
> > moves from an Access Point to the next one (imagine two close houses
> > with two different ninux APs).
> AFAIK the other protocols (or at least their open source
> implementations) don't have (yet) this feature, so I don't think is the
> case to include it in the "official" tests.

Just to be sure that I understand: We only are going to test "features" that 
are present in all protocols ?
Unless I misunderstand I don't think we are creating the right incentive here. 
Exchange on "missing" features can only be fostered if we make these features 
subject of discussion. If we do not, how should the "other" protocols learn 
about the usefulness of those ideas / concepts ? To give an example: The olsrd 
smart gateway feature was born in a lengthy discussion about the usefulness of 
a similar feature existing in batmand (there probably are plenty other 
examples but that was the first to jump into my mind). IMHO real world testing 
can demonstrate such "usefulness" much better than any theoretical discussion.


More information about the Battlemesh mailing list