Wireless Mesh Networks

Roland Piquepaille writes "Robert Poor is CTO of Ember Corporation. He contends that point-to-point or point-to-multipoint networks typical of industrial wireless communications systems have limited scalability and reliability. 'In contrast, wireless mesh networks are multihop systems in which devices assist each other in transmitting packets through the network, especially in adverse conditions. You can drop these ad-hoc networks into place with minimal preparation, and they provide a reliable, flexible system that can be extended to thousands of devices.' The article is pretty technical and contains several illustrations and a case study about the deployment of a wireless mesh network in a water treatment plant. Check this column for Poor's conclusions or read this Sensors article if you have more time."

Comments

IPsec is a requirement

[puzzled]

The only way to make something like this work is to have a solid L3 encryption system between the remote and the head end - intermediate stations will certainly get snooped.

IPsec is the way to go, but its still something of a hassle on IPv4. I've seen a lot of noise about mesh networks - this isn't really going to take off until IPv6 gets moving under its own power - perhaps another five years.

Flash demos of mesh networks

[suqur]

You can find a couple of demonstrations of how mesh networks can actually work and be implemented in cities and companies on MeshNetworks' homepage. Very cool how the p2p works....

The subject of "mesh networks" was covered in...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Wireless Business & Technology magazine recently, in the October 2002 issue--from the now especially timely perspective of how they will almost certainly feature in just the kind of "4G Battlefield" that we may be about to witness in Iraq.

In their WBT article "The Unwired soldier," authors Allen H. Kupetz and K. Terrell Brown introduce their concept of the 'Wal-Mart Soldier' and explain how "every soldier's communication device will be an individual network element with a unique IP address. All the network devices on the battlefield - including those embedded in tanks or other vehicles - will instantly form, heal, and update the network as users come and go. That is, they will associate in an ad hoc manner."

"But unlike cell-based solutions," the authors write, "network coverage and service levels will improve when soldier density increases. Network resources are also better utilized because networks are self-balancing as well. The soldier's subscriber device can hop to distant network access points, away from points of congestion, shifting network capacity to where the demand is."

Here's the really wild part, though: "Finally, this technology will function as a PAN (personal area network), a LAN (local area network), and a WAN (wide area network), simultaneously. This means that the same network can connect a soldier to the squad/platoon, to the battalion, and to a fully mobile division. This is critical to meeting the functionality requirements of the FCS program. It is the equivalent of Bluetooth, 802.11, and 3G converging, but in a single network, with a single device."

They also point out (before you ask!) that "The next-generation soldier's communication device has not yet been chosen. There are several DARPA/DoD projects operating simultaneously, all of which have a communications device component. These include the "Warfighter Information Network - Tactical" (WIN-T), "Future Combat Systems" (FCS - formerly known as Future Ground Combat Systems), "Small Unit Operations/Situational Awareness System" (SUO/SAS), and the "Joint Tactical Radio System - Programmable, Modular Communications System" (JTRS-PMCS)."

Re:Good till everyone has one...

[James_Duncan8181]

Yes, but the issue is what happens when the network density increases. There is only so much spectrum you can use for bandwidth, so if me, my next door neighbour, the whole street and their dog have a wireless link, our connection speeds all go down big time. This is the reason that cellphone networks sometimes have problems placing your call, even with digital compression. You thought contention on a wired network is bad? You'd better just be hoping this doesn't catch on as spectrum is *VERY* limited.