[CUWiN] Multiple radios?
Quantum Scientific
Info at Quantum-Sci.com
Mon Apr 11 07:46:49 CDT 2005
On Monday 11 April 2005 1:18, David Young wrote:
> > Which should assign the IPs in the ring?
>
> I cannot think of any reason the link-local IPs cannot be auto-assigned
> "in the usual way."
Not thinking in terms of IPV6 here. We have discarded IPV6, as there are too
many other problems to solve, not least is beating the source out of Belkin
and grafting in HSLS, Zebra, etc. Anyway this issue remains, as all nodes
would have a scope:global address, since we would follow the spirit of IPV6.
These example routers on a water tower are peers on the ring. All cannot be
the LAN DHCP server (assuming no backhaul). So there must be some rule or
protocol to determine consistently which shall be the master, and the others
must stand down, either manually or automatically. Apparently the current
plan is manual -- choose one and disable the daemon in the rest.
Which raises another question: If one disables a daemon or makes other image
modifications in only certain routers, this would be overwritten on the next
update. For a large network, this would quickly become unmanageable. Again
this is my 'differentiating a gateway' question. This speaks to a need for
node-specific settings in a separate non-volatile area, which are modifiable
by an nvram (command), or somesuch. Commercial routers build this into the
Pmon bootloader image, which I infer is in EEPROM, rather than flash. I
believe the answer here has been, 'ship all the same and then customize',
which is fine, but retaining custom settings becomes the challenge.
Carl Cook
More information about the CU-Wireless
mailing list