From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <4C6EE147.8070500@constitution.org> Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:10:47 -0500 From: Jon Roland MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4C6437BF.9080909@web.de> <201008130524.24059.sven.eckelmann@gmx.de> <4C6E2EF6.6000407@bb.banban.jp> <201008201824.22693.lindner_marek@yahoo.de> <4C6EB6A8.3030801@linux-migration.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Where do we stand on working systems? Reply-To: jon.roland@constitution.org, 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: Outback Dingo Cc: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking How about descriptions of some of those systems: where they are, how well they work, how many nodes, how often used, what problems encountered and how solved, what they are being used for, who is on them. From all anyone can tell from reading this list, one might wonder whether all this is just conjecture about systems that don't exist anywhere. On 08/20/2010 12:24 PM, Outback Dingo wrote: > well define working, to me its what i have deployed in the field, > overall, there are functional versions that do work > and well some that dont.... -- jon ---------------------------------------------------------- Constitution Society http://constitution.org 2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322 Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001 jon.roland@constitution.org ----------------------------------------------------------