[Cu-wireless] status report; weekend meeting?

[pfolk at gargtech.com]

Dave wrote:
> Another possibility is that the IMC station, which has a super-high
> receive sensitivity, does not have a proportionally insensitive
> clear-channel assessment, so it is a reticent transmitter. Peter Folk
> tells me he thinks he sees this problem in his network.  If the problem,
> at bottom, is a reticent transmitter, then that also helps to explain
> why our link is intermittent.

I don't anymore think that the above is correct.  We switched from AP
mode to ad hoc mode, and got back to our expected performance, despite
the fact that the number of deferred transmissions remained very high.
We're still trying to find the cause of the performance degradation
we have seen.

> We can install a new station between IMC and PM, thus reducing the length
> of PM's next hop to the IMC and the Internet. I like this choice because
> it grows our network at the same time as it connects it to the Internet.
> We have prospective station hosts at Race & Green and near Elm & Cedar,
> but Elm & Cedar is a slim prospect, and Race & Green's sight of IMC is
> probably blocked by several buildings.

I have presence at 312 W. Springfield and 409 W. Elm.  Roof access
could probably be arranged at both.  Both locations also have broad-
band available (DSL at 409 W. Elm until I cancel it, Volo at 312
W. Springfield).  Volo can almost certainly hit any of the locations
discussed so far as well.

I also think it would be VERY cool to get Michael Hart in on the
project.  He's been a hero of mine since early in HS.
 
> Can anyone come to a meeting on Sunday afternoon at 1pm, to try to
> debug the network we have now, and to make some decisions affecting the
> network's growth?

I can make that.

Peter

--
Peter Folk                                          Volo Wireless Internet
email: pfolk at gargtech.com                      Gargoyle Technologies, Inc.
ph: 217 367-VOLO
fax: 866 841-0233                                            www.volo.net