On Monday 22 August 2011 16:30:56 Javier Cardona wrote: > Which brings me to the main point of my e-mail: is anyone out there > interested in porting batman's path selection algorithm into > open80211s?
Which one? There are ~5 revisions of the algorithm (not implementations). The
newest iteration is B.A.T.M.A.N. V and is currently in the research and
prototyping phase. The algorithm described in the RFC draft was B.A.T.M.A.N.
III
...but I am not interested in implementing it for 802.11s. Maybe there is
somebody else. Most people are currently focused on batman-adv. So I will
write this response with batman-adv in mind.
> The benefits:
I only see benefits mentioned by you, but were are the disadvantages? I don't
think that a marketing mail is a good start for a serious discussion.
> 1. By being based on a standard, you'll know you won't be colliding
> with other layer 2 technologies (for instance, no need to define your
> own ethertype)
At least batman-adv is quite happy about the fact that it is based on a widely
used standard technology. And defining another identificator instead of an
ethertype doesn't make a big difference to me.
But why are we colliding with any other layer 2 technologies? It sounds like
"uh, you are so bad. you kill cute bunnies", but I don't see the "colliding"
problem here. Maybe you mean the missing ethertype registration (anyone got
$2500 for us?).
> 2. You can leverage most of open80211s, from test tools to wireshark
> patches.
batman-adv also has wireshark integration (already upstream) and test tools.
> 3. By being integrated in the kernel's 802.11 stack, you can take
> advantage of the development that's taking place there, from encrypted
> management frames to HT support.
Aren't all those things part of the layer _below_ batman-adv? Why should we
care about it when the stuff we use has to deal with it.
> 4. You can reach out to a larger development community and raise
> awareness about batman.
What larger development community? At least the open80211s community seems to
be a lot more silent.
> 5. A big problem in mesh adoption on Linux is not the mesh protocol
> itself but the absence of simple to use configuration tools (e.g. no
> mesh support in ConnMan, NetworkManager, etc.). By providing a
> unified wireless mesh framework we increase the likelihood of having
> some support at the distro level.
Hm, maybe we have a different target audience. batman-adv is made for
routers/APs and not for desktop systems. Thats why it has client mac
propagation, bridge loop avoidence and roaming announcements (and many more
things with funny names). And we already have a relative good distro
integration for our target group...
> and last, but not least...
> 6. You'll be able to say authoritatively that batman is X times more
> efficient than HWMP (pick any X greater than 1 :)
And this is important because... And can be measured by... And uses the normed
scale...
Maybe you should visit a Wireless Battle of the Mesh and tell them how such a
benchmark is correctly done.
Greetings,
Sven
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
