>> Should we really only suggest that the router dynamically probe the >> quality of wireless links? Or would it make sense to suggest dynamic >> probing of all links, because assuming the entire path between 2 >> routers uses a single physical layer technology may not be a good >> assumption?
> I agree that is should probe all interfaces! Then you need to define suitable algorithms for non-WiFi interfaces. I'm open to collaboration, of course, since dynamically computed metrics is something that's close to my heart. (Somebody promised to send me some G.hn hardware at some point, but they must have forgotten.) > Some wires might be better than others; assume use of random joiners between > cat3,cat5,cat6 and chicken wire in the home. Babeld's wireless link quality estimation triggers around 5% packet loss; on WiFi, it only works because we're careful to send frames that are not protected by ARQ -- after ARQ, the loss rate is way below that, even on dodgy links. You're not going to get loss rates that over chicken wire (unless you've got really bad quality chicken wire). > (a booth at N+I back in ~2000 or something had a very nice GbE over > barbed wire demo) Somewhat charged politically ;-) -- Juliusz _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
