RE: Selling the idea of OLSR
Phill Brown <pbrown <at> bxss.com.au>
2006-07-08 16:38:30 GMT
We are utilising olsr on all major points of the network. The network
consists of approximately 16 main router nodes with dual or quad radio using
traditional routing but using olsr simply for the dynamic table updates, the
multi path functionality, link quality, and the ease of implementation. The
network was originally and still is a point to point network with client AP
at each point, just with mesh capability. Now you know my scenario. Ill
answer to the best of my knowledge.
>>Mesh networks are not scalable - they cause too much CPU load on small
routers.
I have not noticed any performace degradation, but then am not running in a
true ad-hoc mesh
>>Omni antennas pick up too much RF noise for usable links
This would be true, since the link could still be usable, just not very
efficient, especially since ad-hoc has to be on the same channel which would
become crowded very quickly?
>>Omni-to-Omni links have limited range and the population density in
Melbourne is not sufficient for a critical mass to form a useful mesh
I am not in melbourne, but due a variety of terrains in such a short
distance here, directionals are required as our local connections are
generally a minimum of 1.5km to 18km backbone links, most being about
approximately 6km distance, which and omni would not reach, and would not
perform very effeciently due to lower gain and rf interference. All of our
points are beam to beams links with an omni ap at each location
>>A network where everyone is using a /16 netmask will be like a giant LAN
and everyone will be swamped with everyone else's broadcast traffic
On a wired network I would believe so, I would believe so on wireless as
well, but am not sure how olsr affects this
>>Using OLSR on every node is like trying to create a city-wide network with
WDS
I would believe so, but as you can see above, I am not using that model with
olsr.
Hope that helps from my experiences,
Looking forward to other people responces.
Cheers,
Phill
-----Original Message-----
From: olsr-users-bounces <at> olsr.org [mailto:olsr-users-bounces <at> olsr.org] On
Behalf Of Dan Flett
Sent: Sunday, 9 July 2006 1:48 AM
To: wlanware <at> freifunk.net; 'OLSR discussion and development'
Subject: [OLSR-users] Selling the idea of OLSR
Hi guys,
I am giving a presentation to my wireless group, Melbourne Wireless, this
Friday on OLSR. We currently use OSPF and a traditional routed network
where each node has multiple radios, each with a separate /28 subnet. Most
of our links are point-to-point or point-to-multipoint (client-to-AP). A
lot of people are very sceptical of the idea of using a /16 netmask on an
interface and of using Omni-to-Omni links.
Here are some of the criticisms I'll need to address:
* Mesh networks are not scalable - they cause too much CPU load on small
routers.
* Omni antennas pick up too much RF noise for usable links
* Omni-to-Omni links have limited range and the population density in
Melbourne is not sufficient for a critical mass to form a useful mesh
* A network where everyone is using a /16 netmask will be like a giant LAN
and everyone will be swamped with everyone else's broadcast traffic
* Using OLSR on every node is like trying to create a city-wide network with
WDS
I think I have answers for most of these questions, but I'd like to get some
ideas from the wider OLSR community. I'm sure many of you have faced
similar criticisms, and may have some experience behind you to refute these
claims. If so, I'd love to hear from you!
Regards,
Dan Flett
Secretary
Melbourne Wireless
_______________________________________________
olsr-users mailing list
olsr-users <at> olsr.org
https://www.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-users
RSS Feed