Le 26/03/2015 02:35, Henning Rogge a écrit :
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Alexandru Petrescu
<alexandru.petre...@gmail.com> wrote:
Err, no. It's an A-B-C situation where each (even B) has 1
interface, and all are in an IBSS. This is the situation
described in that draft.
Are there 1-interface routers in homenet?
In an 802.11 IBSS, I would assume yes.
Well IBSS is not made to have 1-interface routers on them, so this
(1-interface routers) is not really good to do, in my personal
oppinion.
IBSS is made to have 1-interface Hosts on it, not routers.
one of the typical use-cases of IBSS mode was to connect larger
amount of routers for a mesh network.
I doubt that. IEEE specs of IBSS tell 'STA' (station). They never say
Router.
A mesh network may be a nonsense in itself; it's as if IP networks were
not meshed, or as if there were meshes somewhere which were not networks.
One has to look at the latin origins of the words mesh and network.
They mean practically the same thing, no need to double.
Remark this is my IMHO and a number of other people disagree with
this.
I know.
I just tell that you can build a very good ad-hoc network without
an AP and with 2-interface routers. At that point there is no
hidden-terminal problem.
Unfortunately this is wrong.
The number of interfaces is totally irrelevant to the hidden station
problem.
Well no.
In the ABC problem if B had two interfaces each on a different channel,
and it were a real IP router then there were no hidden station problem.
Insisting to deploy 1-interface routers and say there are unsolvable
problems, and that meshes are different than other networks, is leading
to frustration.
Please do not get me wrong: I do support IBSS mode and large wireless
neworks; except that they should be done otherwise than currently
recommended.
The only question is if you have one wireless radio interface (among
many on a router) connecting to two other routers (with maybe many
more interfaces) that cannot hear each other on this interface.
So you should not have only wireless interface on a router. You should
have at least two distinct wireless interfaces on a router, each on a
different channel. This is what some deployments do.
It can even happen on AP/client networks if you use them to connect
multiple routers. There is no guarantee that the clients can see each
other.
The guarantee to see each other comes from careful network planning,
careful field analysis. Once the field is understood the deployment is
very easy.
A guarantee that everything will be unstable stems from lack of analysis
of the field and promotion of technology that is designed on paper by
using a God view.
Alex
Henning Rogge
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
