[Cerowrt-devel] I've always liked the idea of doing up building-wide networks

[Cerowrt-devel] I've always liked the idea of doing up building-wide networks

[Dave Taht]

... In particular when it came to getting minimal interference on all
the wifi access points. It is better to have fewer, better wifi APs
with a co-ordinated channel allocation strategy in an apartment
building than everybody installing one willy-nilly.

http://www.frankston.com/public/?name=20140717-0146

BTW: When I find an interesting link, these days, I tend to just put
it on my g+ rather than the email lists, and tend to feel I'm wasting
other people's bandwidth by doing it on the list - although sometimes
a good discussion is sparked. Should I stop forwarding stuff like this
(and the mit paper) to the list?

-- 
Dave Täht

NSFW: https://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/russell_0296_indecent.article

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] I've always liked the idea of doing up building-wide networks

[David Personette]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1106 bytes --]

I at least liked both the links here on the list.

-- 
David P.


On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:

> ... In particular when it came to getting minimal interference on all
> the wifi access points. It is better to have fewer, better wifi APs
> with a co-ordinated channel allocation strategy in an apartment
> building than everybody installing one willy-nilly.
>
> http://www.frankston.com/public/?name=20140717-0146
>
> BTW: When I find an interesting link, these days, I tend to just put
> it on my g+ rather than the email lists, and tend to feel I'm wasting
> other people's bandwidth by doing it on the list - although sometimes
> a good discussion is sparked. Should I stop forwarding stuff like this
> (and the mit paper) to the list?
>
> --
> Dave Täht
>
> NSFW:
> https://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/russell_0296_indecent.article
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1864 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] I've always liked the idea of doing up building-wide networks

[Alijah Ballard]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1525 bytes --]

As I don't watch G+ or Facebook. On the list is prefered.

Thanks for all of the work you have done so far.


On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:46 AM, David Personette <dperson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I at least liked both the links here on the list.
>
> --
> David P.
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ... In particular when it came to getting minimal interference on all
>> the wifi access points. It is better to have fewer, better wifi APs
>> with a co-ordinated channel allocation strategy in an apartment
>> building than everybody installing one willy-nilly.
>>
>> http://www.frankston.com/public/?name=20140717-0146
>>
>> BTW: When I find an interesting link, these days, I tend to just put
>> it on my g+ rather than the email lists, and tend to feel I'm wasting
>> other people's bandwidth by doing it on the list - although sometimes
>> a good discussion is sparked. Should I stop forwarding stuff like this
>> (and the mit paper) to the list?
>>
>> --
>> Dave Täht
>>
>> NSFW:
>> https://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/russell_0296_indecent.article
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
>> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2862 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] I've always liked the idea of doing up building-wide networks

[David Lang]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2014, Dave Taht wrote:

> ... In particular when it came to getting minimal interference on all
> the wifi access points. It is better to have fewer, better wifi APs
> with a co-ordinated channel allocation strategy in an apartment
> building than everybody installing one willy-nilly.

the key is the co-ordinated channel allocation, beyond that it can be better to 
have more, "worse" wifi APs than fewer "better" ones to reduce interference.

> http://www.frankston.com/public/?name=20140717-0146

looks interesting

> BTW: When I find an interesting link, these days, I tend to just put
> it on my g+ rather than the email lists, and tend to feel I'm wasting
> other people's bandwidth by doing it on the list - although sometimes
> a good discussion is sparked. Should I stop forwarding stuff like this
> (and the mit paper) to the list?

to the list, even if it's a link I don't care about, it's easier to delete it 
along with other e-mail than to go to G+ and look at it.

Also, remember that people's G+ feeds show a sampling of what other people post, 
so some people will miss it if you only post it to G+

David Lang

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] I've always liked the idea of doing up building-wide networks

[Dave Taht]

I've been looking for a copy of this paper for a long time, and
finally found it.

http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~sylvia/cs268-2014/papers//FQ1989.pdf

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 4:25 PM, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2014, Dave Taht wrote:
>
>> ... In particular when it came to getting minimal interference on all
>> the wifi access points. It is better to have fewer, better wifi APs
>> with a co-ordinated channel allocation strategy in an apartment
>> building than everybody installing one willy-nilly.
>
>
> the key is the co-ordinated channel allocation, beyond that it can be better
> to have more, "worse" wifi APs than fewer "better" ones to reduce
> interference.
>
>> http://www.frankston.com/public/?name=20140717-0146
>
>
> looks interesting
>
>
>> BTW: When I find an interesting link, these days, I tend to just put
>> it on my g+ rather than the email lists, and tend to feel I'm wasting
>> other people's bandwidth by doing it on the list - although sometimes
>> a good discussion is sparked. Should I stop forwarding stuff like this
>> (and the mit paper) to the list?
>
>
> to the list, even if it's a link I don't care about, it's easier to delete
> it along with other e-mail than to go to G+ and look at it.
>
> Also, remember that people's G+ feeds show a sampling of what other people
> post, so some people will miss it if you only post it to G+
>
> David Lang



-- 
Dave Täht

NSFW: https://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/russell_0296_indecent.article