> I can do things most other wireless manufacturers 'won't" > (networking features at the AP or CPE). > Many manufactures concern themselves with the performance of their radios. Adding additional networking features requires either a bigger CPU or less throughput for the radio.
> The future of wireless is mesh or mesh type topographies. > (OLSR/OSPF) Even of I used a boxed bridged solution of very > high quality such as Alvarion, Trango, Moto, etc, I would > still have to buy a router-wireless soultion for the router > and diversity customer delivery. > I disagree that the future of wireless is mesh. Mesh is one architecture that has a place, but I don't expect every topology to move to mesh. For example, enforcing SLAs is much more difficult when a mesh topology is used. I would also add that OSPF doesn't do well in a mesh topology. > Why bother with the boxed bridge solution in the first place? > In our case, it allows us to have a proper seperation of concerns. Specifically, the radios bridge one location to another, while our routing equipment focuses on routing. In this way, each device does what it was designed to do. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
