Re: [CUWiN] Multiple radios?

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
_______________________________________________
CU-Wireless mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/cu-wireless
Project Page: http://cuwireless.ucimc.org