On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 14:11, Sean Estabrooks wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:14:40 +0200
> Asbjorn Hoiland Aarrestad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Got a challenging routing problem, and perhaps some of you can help
> > me.
> >
> > The network is as follows.
> > We have 12 "standalone" nodes with wireless lan cards. The nodes are
> > placed on a line, and the average distance between each node is 400
> > meters. With good wireless cards, that means that we can reach two or
> > three node neighbours on each side of a node. (the nodes will be
> > placed
> > in the middle of nowhere, security is not the issue since the biggest
> > security risk will be the ice and polar bears. This also means that
> > putting up tp-wires is not an option)
> >
> > on each side of the line of nodes, there will be a server. There will
> > only be people at the first server (beside the first node) The nodes
> > will be collecting data, and we want to transfer the data to the
> > server
> > beside the first node. But we also want to be able to telnet into each
> >
> > of the nodes to be able to do maintainance (so we don't have to use a
> > snow-mobile and get very cold each time there is a problem on one of
> > the
> > nodes)
> >
> > Any ideas on how to make a "good enough" network, enabeling us to
> > communicate between the nods and the servers?
> >
> >
>
> Hi Asbjorn,
>
> Sounds like a fun project.
>
> The first thought that springs to mind is that you treat each node as
> a separate network. Essentially a network of 1 with each node having
> a fixed IP address on its own subnet. Then run a routing daemon on each
> node that discovers its neighbours and shares that route information
> with each of them. This should give you some resiliency in the face of
> a single node dropping out.
>
I have zero experience with wireless so excuse my boneheaded
question(s). I think this is going to make me take an orthogonal view
from how I normally picture a network. Perhaps it is my needing to read
up on routing daemons that would fill in my blank spots.
My usual thinking ( forget wifi for a minute)
base server --------node1---------node2 ... node12-------remote server
in a wired scenario each node would have 2 nics and each segment between
the boxes would be separate networks with exactly 2 hosts. 4
ipaddresses would be required to correctly subnet each network.
Now, Sean said make each node a network and since there is only one
interface that can talk to multiple networks, this is where I get
bumfuzzled since as I said, I usually thing of the link between machines
as the network.
I think of this as logical links (assume that each machine can see the
next two)
/---------------- ---\
base server --------node1---------node2 ... node12-------remote server
\------------------------------/
Since the network interface on any given node can see multiple networks
is this tantamount to running multiple subnets on the same wire? Is
there the concept of a default gateway in this scenario? I can't see how
since in all neworking I have done the next hop or default gateway to
another network is on the same subnet as the host.
Does this make sense? what am I missing?
Bret
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
