From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 16:44:59 +0100 From: Antonio Quartulli Message-ID: <20120208154458.GE21844@ritirata.org> References: <73D963E8-129F-4DA1-B521-38640393D3CE@solvare.se> <20120208132637.GA21844@ritirata.org> <20120208151317.GD21844@ritirata.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="NtwzykIc2mflq5ck" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] multi path TCP Reply-To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Id: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking --NtwzykIc2mflq5ck Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 04:35:29PM +0100, Christian Huldt wrote: > Maybe one could do something similar with routes rather than interfaces? = That is, by sending packets to different other nodes? Mh..I don't get this. Why sending packets to different nodes? I think the m= ain goal of outing is to reach the destination ;-) Unless your destination is connected to both the nodes you chose I don't think it is a good idea. Cheers, --=20 Antonio Quartulli =2E.each of us alone is worth nothing.. Ernesto "Che" Guevara --NtwzykIc2mflq5ck Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPMph6AAoJEFMQTLzJFOZFcJ0H/1JSlPyenO8Sw8l3c1n9CptE er+/0IVujGCUESG8cLIiJFmm6wRZkemspSrxhLeHBfeB854e200lLM4FgD2g0wPW B3U1Usukd+THkJEZ5ksoQTWBp52BhsQaiy3YCg293hYfCuZ/1y3iJngLN8n64Vv7 1nbNC0NW3leI9CNcdk/QgRpPOIIA6BdhjYYNnqqkjpKZFCLtWr4G8htqg9UQrO5X UyizPGYvYR2HmJrx456/9sQIKbhtilIJiACuAxlh8pH2RyN5WSMbB7GfyW/GQCIT N1K+iWS76JOMlu19SMQC7wmpe29KlbcIS0DUFrRQorP8NXGsJaCEEl68oKtB6so= =my+q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --NtwzykIc2mflq5ck--