On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Toerless Eckert <eckert@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> PS.: I just spent a day at CeBIT. One guy there reported to that he has seen 35000 active devices on his WiFi snooper. >> I'm not quite sure what that means, but he seemed to be implying "at a specific point in time". >> Go congestion control that. And then "prove" that your solution works. > > Bear proof ? > > 802.11 CSMA/CA does make sure that every participants gets so little bandwidth > in this situation that L3 congestion control is not the issue. > > (I don't have to proof that i am faster than the bear, just that there is somebody slower) > >> Somehow, we still seem to be deploying WiFi, nonetheless, and some even consider WiFi a success. > > Its being used and continues to make money, and there is nothing else that works better > because otherwise that would have been successfull. > >> Would your hypothetical AD waiting for "sufficient work was done" have approved WiFi? In 1998? > > Do you think with your type of AD requirements we would have better WiFi today ? > > Seriously, i think you're overthinking it. There are expert group participants, there are WG-Chairs > and there are ADs. I think this discussion circulates way too much around thinking that we must > shift technical expertise two layers up the management chain. Its a nice concept, it gives a warm > and fuzzy community feeling, we had the luxury enjoying it in many areas in the past, but it > does not scale nor is there IMHO any good proof that it works better than what i described > and what commercial companies exercise. In addition i would contend it tends to burn great > technical experts in the AD role. Yes, i can see how its cool to be burned fast with all the > stuff you get to see and judge in an AD role - for a while. > > Cheers > Toerless Well said, Toerless. Greg