https://www.wi-fi.org/discover-wi-fi/wi-fi-easymesh
I think openwrt is a good platform to implement Wi-Fi EasyMesh.
What's your opinion?
1 Like
As my opinion, 66 pages of spec, including the arguable security implications of enabling TR-069 (remote management of CPE by ISPs) and "push-button configuration" (WPS) don't have me terribly excited.
It potentially could be implemented by a combination of user-space programs and driver modifications to implement both the logic of the protocol, as well as the new message types.
My opinion is that this is a forward-looking draft specification primarily intended to guide in-chip implementation for the next generations of devices.
2 Likes
Well, it seems that prplMesh has brought the idea into reality.
There is even prplMesh-openwrt and prplwrt !
Has anyone got experience on these?
3 Likes
I somehow fail to understand how this is different from a “normal” 802.11s mesh, other than it uses a similar method like WPS to add extra mesh points.
Could someone explain that in 3 easy sentences?
I am not sure, but I think you are right.
The main differences may be "easy" and "interoperable".
There are several mesh systems in the consumer market.
Some of them use 802.11s (Google Wifi?, Tenda Nova MW6?).
But there is no EASY way to make them INTEROPERABLE.
Hello.
Here is what I understood, happy to be corrected !
One of the difference is how the topology of the network works. EasyMesh relies on WDS and 4 address mode. A node of the network si both AP and STA and connects to the AP of another node. There is only one path between two points of the network, it's actually a tree. One of the nodes, the Controller, gathers metrics and capabilities of each AP and decides how AP are connected to each other. Commands are sent using a protocol based on 1905.1, specified by EasyMesh. An event can trigger a reconfiguration but the steering logic of APs is not part of the spec. Only actions by the controller are enabled by the protocol, but the decision logic is left to each vendor to innovate.
On the other hand 802.11s introduced the Mesh Point mode, which allows a node to maintain connectivity with all nearby nodes. There is no central controller which decides the topology of the network or data path. This is decentralized and part of 802.11s spec. And so, to my knowledge, there is no protocol to propagate a configuration on the network.
Hope this helps.
1 Like
So, in theory, which delivers better performance? EasyMesh or 802.11s?
Effectively the same as it is the link throughput and latency that dominates in most situations.
Is code good enough to be deployed on live wifi network? Has anyone tested prplMesh in real world?
I wonder what the current state of prplMesh/EasyMesh for OpenWRT is. prplMesh seems to be actively maintained but unsure if there is any scope of "upstreaming" the implementation.
1 Like
I wonder that, too.
It would be great to enable EasyMesh with routers/extenders that don't support OpenWRT but have support for EasyMesh.
Any news about this???
Cheers!
1 Like