On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 10:16:04AM -0700, james woodyatt wrote:
An additional complication with 802.11 is that various physical encodings use
spacial beam forming for unicast and that???s not possible with multicast.
It???s the main reason that transmission bit rates for unicast can be so
On Aug 6, 2015, at 17:42, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
wrote:
I wasn't aware of the treatment of multicast packets as less than best
effort in wireless transmission. That is not exactly intuitive, given
that radio is inherently broadcast.
Yes, that's
(included mbo...@ietf.org and also changed subject to something more
appropriate)
As far as I can tell, so far people have told IETF it's their job to
reduce multicast to make IP based protocol work on 802.11 media. That's
at least what I have been seeing. Considering the reactions from
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 4:02 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek
j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr wrote:
[...]
There are two lessons to be drawn from that experience:
1. don't put 1500 wifi routers in a single room;
2. making a routing daemon that works well in a variety of conditions is
hard
I just find it strange that you have hit the multicast problem for routing
protocols but not for IPv6.
Ah, I now understand that we were speaking about different things.
The issue that Babel used to have with 802.11 multicast was not packet
loss -- Babel is designed to be extremely resilient
Thanks!
-Original Message-
From: Juliusz Chroboczek [mailto:j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr]
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 8:43 PM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: Homenet
Subject: Multicast in 802.11 [was: Despair]
Importance: High
I wasn't aware of the treatment of multicast packets as less than
