I hereby request of the chairs of this working group that they cancel
any planned presentations at the upcoming meeting, and instead require
of the group that they actually bring in their own router from
anything off this list:
http://downloads.openwrt.org/snapshots/trunk/
and there be, say, 5 et
One of the things I am testing is the new (so far pretty wonderful)
minstrel-blues patches for linux which couples rate control with
reducing power where it can, and adds a per station rc_stats_csv file
that can be easily parsed by external utilities. This gives you a
snapshot of the actual rate to
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Curtis Villamizar
wrote:
> In message
>
> Henning Rogge writes:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Curtis Villamizar
>> wrote:
>> > In message <87a903ef2j.wl-...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>
>> > Juliusz Chroboczek writes:
>> >> As to wireless links -- as far a
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Curtis Villamizar
wrote:
>
> In message <87a903ef2j.wl-...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>
> Juliusz Chroboczek writes:
>>
>> > Thought: In general, my feeling is that L2 link status is widely relied
>> > upon in commercial product/dpeloyments. If homenet feels it can
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Curtis Villamizar
wrote:
> In message <54ee258e.8060...@gmail.com>
> Brian E Carpenter writes:
>
>> On 26/02/2015 05:14, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> > On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Ray Hunter wrote:
>> >
>> >> That way the devices can roam at L3, without all of the nasty s
In message <54ee258e.8060...@gmail.com>
Brian E Carpenter writes:
> On 26/02/2015 05:14, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Ray Hunter wrote:
> >
> >> That way the devices can roam at L3, without all of the nasty side effects
> >> of re-establishing TPC sessions, or updating
> >
On 27.2.2015, at 23.37, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
> Thanks for the response though. I use FreeBSD and other than rate and
> S/N there isn't much, so could you send me sample output from a Linux
> host or better yet a Linux AP with a few "neighbors". We can take
> this off list and discuss the sam
In message
Henning Rogge writes:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Curtis Villamizar
> wrote:
> > In message <87a903ef2j.wl-...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>
> > Juliusz Chroboczek writes:
> >> As to wireless links -- as far as I'm aware, making efficient use of
> >> wireless L2 information in a
I am glad, incidentally, that for the first time, this wg is
considering some of the problems wifi has, and growing towards
understanding them in more detail. I have long been working on finding
answers to these deep, underlying problems - after first identifying
some the major ones:
https://www.y
On Feb 27, 2015, at 7:26 AM, Teco Boot wrote:
> My call is: keep going, let's solve it. If it takes TRILL, CAPWAP, CPE/cloud
> based SDN: so be it. I want to see two- or three-pack high-end wired/wireless
> homenet router kits in the shop that will replace our current gear.
I'd love it if it di
> Op 27 feb. 2015, om 12:39 heeft Juliusz Chroboczek
> het volgende geschreven:
>
>>> When performance in dual stack networks with multiple WiFi AP's in homes
>>> suffers from homenet protocols, this WG produces dead protocols.
>
>> Why would homenet cause wifi APs to suffer more than they do
> Yep, intentionally so for now; of course, we could turn it even more in
> the scalable (routing) protocol direction if there is desire.
That's not quite what I meant. I'll try to put it differently.
Right now, an HNCP node performs the following actions:
1. participate in Trickle-based floodi
>> When performance in dual stack networks with multiple WiFi AP's in homes
>> suffers from homenet protocols, this WG produces dead protocols.
> Why would homenet cause wifi APs to suffer more than they do today?
I think Teco was reacting to the suggestion that we perform wifi-wifi
bridging at a
13 matches
Mail list logo
