Differences between revisions 17 and 19 (spanning 2 versions)
Revision 17 as of 2002-04-29 09:46:50
Size: 2970
Editor: international1-13
Revision 19 as of 2003-01-06 23:22:35
Size: 3034
Editor: anonymous
Comment: missing edit-log entry for this revision
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 19: Line 19:
  * http://www.tml.hut.fi/~ajtuomin/manet/
  * http:
  * http://www.tml.hut.fi/~ajtuomin/manet/aodv/
Line 41: Line 40:
  * http://www.tml.hut.fi/~ajtuomin/manet/
  * http://tonnant.itd.nrl.navy.mil/manet/survey/survey.html
Line 58: Line 59:

The ManSig is trying to figure out how to build out and scale community networks. There are several key issues with wireless networks and community networks which are less of an issue with commercial wired networks. -- AdamShand

With community networks each node is often owned by a seperate person, further there is no paid admin staff to come to the rescue in case the network fails. Thus, it is important that the network be architected in a manner that faults are localized as much as possible. In other words the death of one node or router shouldn't be able to paralyze a large chunk of the network.

With wireless networks the key issue is that it is very geographic specific. Consumer grade wireless protocols (specifically 802.11b) run at high frequencies and have a fairly limited range (100 feet to a couple miles). This means that building a fully meshed network can be tricky through to impossible.

Because of these reasons we see AdHoc routing protocols as the key to our sucess in the ["NAN"] arena (the ["MAN"] will probably use a more traditional network structure).

See also: Peer2PeerRouting

Here is a list of some of the OpenSource AdHoc routing protocols that we are aware of. As we gain experience with them we will update these pages with what we learn.

And some commercial software:

[CategoryDocumentation] [CategoryMan]

AdhocRouting (last edited 2007-11-23 18:00:43 by localhost)