Introducing 802.11s - Wireless Mesh Networking 253
ikewillis writes "Intel has introduced a new wireless networking standard called 802.11s. This standard utilizes a mesh topology, allowing for fully self-configuring networks where each node can relay messages on behalf of others, thus increasing the range and available bandwidth with the number of nodes active within the system, versus the point-to-point structure of existing WiFi networks. This will radically transform WiFi hotspots, allowing the geographical area and available bandwidth on the network to scale with the number of participants."
s? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wimax is LICENSED, Wifi is NOT licensed (Score:5, Insightful)
FreeMeshWeb? (Score:5, Insightful)
Could this jump-start the "freeweb" movement, particularly since the telcos are lobbying and pushing to kill the muni wireless attempts?
Let's get the entrepreneurs and the networking hippies on the same "frequency."
Re:It SOUNDS good... (Score:1, Insightful)
Imagine a free and easily accessable metro network. Not neccisarially 'the internet', but a local municipility network that is fairly unregulated and self-healing.
Network on the bus, network on the school, network at work, network everywere. You connect home, watch tv, home file servers, secure services, cpu-heavy crypto. Free VoIP. Stuff like that.
And what does Intel sell a lot of? Notebooks, cpus and chipsets and so on and so forth. What does other people sell a lot of.. Not notebooks.
This is technology that would help Intel market mobile computers in the forms of laptops and miniture devices running xscale proccessors and so forth.
Actually it's REALY FUCKING OBVIOUS what Intel would get from this. Some people.
Re:FreeMeshWeb? (Score:1, Insightful)
Free... jeeze...
Speed (Score:1, Insightful)
Think about the conventional wired based internet - it would never work in a similar way to this concept. That is why there are dedicated routers that take care of such tasks.
WiFi lower level protocol vs. IP (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of these projects try to build their mesh networks on the IP level, i.e. hardware and, IMHO even more important, medium independent.
This standard seems to work below the IP level, i.e. invisible for normal routing hardware and only usable with those "s" devices.
I wonder if this is really a good idea. Making such a standard prevents altering and improving the routing algorithms (because in the best case, they reside on some FPGA) or using mesh network topologies with, lets say, a mixed WiFi, free space optical (think house to house laser pointers
OTOH, maybe the network will be more stable, but one has to prove that.
Re:This is great but... (Score:2, Insightful)
That's why it's a mesh (Score:3, Insightful)
That does mean you have to design things so there isn't a single point of failure...unless you want a single point of failure, of course.
The spec just addresses the nuts and bolts of devices talking to each other. It doesn't take the place of an intelligent designer.
Re:Sounds great but unreliable? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:WiFi lower level protocol vs. IP (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wimax is LICENSED, Wifi is NOT licensed (Score:5, Insightful)
(Yes, I'm going for an even split between funny and troll).
Re:This is great but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Agreed! And also... (Score:3, Insightful)
Paul B.
Re:This is great but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention, security. This opens up a wide-open area for Bad People to do Bad Things with much more ease.
Re:Wimax is LICENSED, Wifi is NOT licensed (Score:3, Insightful)
corporations have no power that isn't given to them by choices consumers make
Just a for instance [wikipedia.org]Re:Whither the Internet? (Score:4, Insightful)
University communities (Score:1, Insightful)
This is premature (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, no one has given a MAC protocol that solves the hidden/exposed sender/receiver problems simultaneously. Without such a MAC protocol, it is impossible to resolve the contention fairly. 802.11 DCF solves hidden and exposed sender, but not receiver.
Also, Gupta and Kumar [bell-labs.com] showed that the per-node bandwidth in a wireless mesh with random node placement is O(1/sqrt(n)). This is especially bad news for the sort of nationwide wireless meshes people have been talking about here.
Finally, TCP is especially problematic [ieee-infocom.org] over multiple wireless hops. It causes self-interference which creates massive packet loss due to contention. TCP is built on the assumption that all packet loss is from congestion, but this assumption is not met by wireless contention losses.
In my own simulations, TCP's overaggression causes routing packet losses, creating spurious route breakage and even more TCP timeouts.