wireless mesh network

Hi Druv,

Thanks for your post.
I really don't see why a "true" mesh isn't in AdHoc mode ?
In my mind - anything which is NOT in AdHoc mode would not be a "true" mesh...
Let me explain - a true mesh is a network where all stations are equal. There are no clients and no access-points...
All stations are mesh nodes - hence it is a Mesh network.
Working in AdHoc mode have nothing but advantages IMHO - hence everyone is doing so...
I can't find any reason behind your direction...
Maybe you tell us what your aims are... so we can better understand your ideas...

You refer to a network where APs are in master mode - well then, that's not a mesh, that's infrastracture mode - isn't it ?
In anyway - what WDS has to do with any of this ?

You might like to play with sources of drivers like MadWifi.
(For Atheros radios), I bet you'll be able to tweak the code to get multiple APs to "see" each other if using the same channel and ssid.

Good luck,

Yahel.

Hi

Umm, it's Dhruv and not Druv.
Anyway's, i guess it is a differnce in the way you view it and i view it. I view a mesh network as a wireless counter part of the internet, where in you have routers (APs in master mode for wireless networks) and then you have clients connecting to the routers (clients in wireless network). I agree using adhoc mode is advantageous, but then to think in a practical context, which normal user would configure his laptop/PC in adhoc mode to access the internet. He would rather want to get associated automatically (like in master/client case as in Wi-Fi networks). So I would rather have my APs in master mode. I again repeat my earlier statement, that what is the difference between wireless mesh and multi-hop adhoc network if seen from your view point. I see it as a mesh of several master mode APs so that we can cover larger areas by hopping over them and have few gateway nodes with wired connection.
And yes, i have started looking into madwifi drivers. We are also using Atheros cards, but with Soekris boards.

HI

I would encourage you to look at this.

1.Design and evaluation of iMesh: an infrastructure-mode wireless mesh network
Navda, V.; Kashyap, A.; Das, S.R.;
World of Wireless Mobile and Multimedia Networks, 2005. WoWMoM 2005. Sixth IEEE International Symposium on a
13-16 June 2005 Page(s):164 - 170

Ad-Hoc mode Vs. Infrastracture mode...

Dhruv,

Why can't the client machines connect to units in Ad-hoc mode ?
Why the need for AP mode.
Anyway - I can't anderstand what you are trying to do.
We do practical things here, not much time for theoretical discussions.

Hope to help you - but it's hard if I have no clue what you try to do...

I would imagine that Ad-hocing your network in the way previously described would simply become a Administators worst nightmare when determining bottlenecks in bandwidth, isolating packet storms, and creating smaller collision domains.

If you were to create a ad-hoc netowork with let's say 27 individual workstations with external antennae connections with great LOS and steady SNR's, you would have 27 workstations all forwarding broadcasts on connections which will only be active as long as the neighboring workstation is active and broadcasting.

AP's help segment and organize a network into collision domains which each client radio can be monitored and loged. The control and reliability you get when implementing an access point for larger scale meshes is exponentially greater than an ad-hoc network.