On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 05:28:05PM -0500, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > Le 24/03/2015 17:19, David Lamparter a écrit : > > Before we lose this, let it be noted that we seemed to have arrived > > at "no" for an answer to whether we want to deal with non-transitive > > networks, *as part of this particular routing protocol discussion*. > > > > If I'm misrepresenting the outcome from today's meeting, someone > > please correct me. > > That transitiveness issue is from the fact that their routers only have > 1 interface.
I don't follow. If each of the routers in the A-B-C situation has a wired segment attached to them, it's still A-C intransitive, but they each have 2 interfaces? > Are there 1-interface routers in homenet? In an 802.11 IBSS, I would assume yes. > > I *don't* think meshes are out of scope for homenet. I do think > > meshes need a mesh routing protocol. But pulling this into the > > current discussion seems to generate nothing but waste heat. > > We dont have a definition of what a mesh is. Saying mesh is inviting > people from RoLL and MANET WGs to argue. > > However, I'd doubt a homenet is a mesh in their sense. Sorry - replace "mesh" with "network segment with intransitive reachability" in my mail. (And I'm not applying the concept to a homenet as a whole, I see it as an attribute of a particular set of links / interface types.) > > As a consequence, when we talk about 802.11, we would be talking > > about AP / BSS, not ad-hoc / IBSS. > > Yes and no. > > Yes, at home most deployments are in AP mode. > > But no in that still at home the WiFi landscape has recently become > reacher than the old dichotomy AP-mode vs adhoc-mode. E.g. the 802.11ac > and ad products feature direct AP to AP communication for range > extension, or streaming from a tablet to a TV set, or a LED projector > switching between being an AP itself or being a Client to another AP. I'll have to look at these in detail, but they sound like individual links that would be treated as P2P in the routing protocol. (In the tablet to TV set case, I guess routing wouldn't be involved at all? Strays into the "is everything a router?" question, though.) > > No hidden node problem. No intransitive reachability. Massively > > reduced marginal links (because when you start losing beacons > > between AP and Client, you'll be deassociated.) > > Tinkering about this. Tinker loudly, into your keyboard, onto a mail ;) -David _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
