Is there anyone on moos at nerp.net that isn't on tcwug-list, and wants to continue to be included in these discussions? If not, I suppose the alias can go away. On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 03:08:00AM -0500, Matthew S. Hallacy wrote: > I assume that nobody else has any data for me, so here we go: > > http://www.mn-linux.org/members/poptix/moos/ > > Note that the images are around 200KB each, with the exception of the > satellite and topo images, which are about 2M each. > > Feedback is appreciated. This is all very interesting, but a radio friend of mine made a good point when I was discussing the Moos Event with him. In general, the AP is going to have a better transmit side than the NIC; it has more power to work with, a better antenna system, etc. Conversely, the NIC probably has lower transmit power and a lesser antenna. Furthermore, an AP on Moos is going to be barraged with noise, since it has LOS to just about every radio source in Hennepin and Ramsey counties, while the NIC can hear the AP and any other radiators in its immediate vicinity, but not much else. These points suggest that we should do more than just running Kismet to test connectivity between Moos and a mobile station. Kismet is a fabulous tool, but it explicitly does NOT test the host-to-AP side of the connection (please correct me if I'm wrong in this claim). We should also find out how well mobile nodes can associate with the AP, and do some round-trip tests, to ensure that the radio round-trip is usable. I don't know of any pointy-clicky tools that make this easy, but I'm sure we can whip something up if need be. Does anybody out there have any experience doing this kind of connectivity testing? If so, are you willing to share your experience with the group? [Aside: The NIC has one potential significant advantage over the AP -- the NIC can use a directional antenna, while (in our current configuration) the AP must use an omni.] -andy