Are “ad-hoc” networks always wireless?











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












We see that almost always the term of "ad-hoc networks" comes with WSN (Wireless Sensor Network). Does it mean an ad-hoc network must be always wireless?



If we define an ad-hoc network as follows:




"An ad hoc network is a network that is composed of individual devices
communicating with each other directly." [1]




Can we imagine a "wired ad hoc" network?





[1] https://www.techopedia.com/definition/5868/ad-hoc-network










share|improve this question






















  • Probably they are referring to a specific operation mode of WiFi networks commonly known as ad-hoc mode. Wikipedia has a brief description of it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi#Wi-Fi_ad-hoc_mode
    – kasperd
    9 hours ago















up vote
1
down vote

favorite












We see that almost always the term of "ad-hoc networks" comes with WSN (Wireless Sensor Network). Does it mean an ad-hoc network must be always wireless?



If we define an ad-hoc network as follows:




"An ad hoc network is a network that is composed of individual devices
communicating with each other directly." [1]




Can we imagine a "wired ad hoc" network?





[1] https://www.techopedia.com/definition/5868/ad-hoc-network










share|improve this question






















  • Probably they are referring to a specific operation mode of WiFi networks commonly known as ad-hoc mode. Wikipedia has a brief description of it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi#Wi-Fi_ad-hoc_mode
    – kasperd
    9 hours ago













up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











We see that almost always the term of "ad-hoc networks" comes with WSN (Wireless Sensor Network). Does it mean an ad-hoc network must be always wireless?



If we define an ad-hoc network as follows:




"An ad hoc network is a network that is composed of individual devices
communicating with each other directly." [1]




Can we imagine a "wired ad hoc" network?





[1] https://www.techopedia.com/definition/5868/ad-hoc-network










share|improve this question













We see that almost always the term of "ad-hoc networks" comes with WSN (Wireless Sensor Network). Does it mean an ad-hoc network must be always wireless?



If we define an ad-hoc network as follows:




"An ad hoc network is a network that is composed of individual devices
communicating with each other directly." [1]




Can we imagine a "wired ad hoc" network?





[1] https://www.techopedia.com/definition/5868/ad-hoc-network







wireless ad-hoc-wireless






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 14 hours ago









sas

1355




1355












  • Probably they are referring to a specific operation mode of WiFi networks commonly known as ad-hoc mode. Wikipedia has a brief description of it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi#Wi-Fi_ad-hoc_mode
    – kasperd
    9 hours ago


















  • Probably they are referring to a specific operation mode of WiFi networks commonly known as ad-hoc mode. Wikipedia has a brief description of it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi#Wi-Fi_ad-hoc_mode
    – kasperd
    9 hours ago
















Probably they are referring to a specific operation mode of WiFi networks commonly known as ad-hoc mode. Wikipedia has a brief description of it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi#Wi-Fi_ad-hoc_mode
– kasperd
9 hours ago




Probably they are referring to a specific operation mode of WiFi networks commonly known as ad-hoc mode. Wikipedia has a brief description of it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi#Wi-Fi_ad-hoc_mode
– kasperd
9 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
6
down vote













Caveat: This question might raise primarily opinion-based answers, and might be put on hold or considered off-topic, for exactly that reason.



Still, I dare to attempt an answer:



Following https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc#Networking




The term “ad hoc networking” typically refers to a system of network
elements that combine to form a network requiring little or no
planning.




The linked main wikipedia article subsequently focusses on wireless ad hoc networks only.



However, I don't quite see why a wired ad hoc network should not be thinkable, if a few conditions are met:




  • the devices to be connected all have an network interface of matching technology ("Ethernet" springs to mind).

  • there is a means to wire them all together, in a fashion that any participating device can talk to any (and to all) other participating device (Star? Bus? Ring? Anyone remeber 10base2?)

  • the medium and topology chosen to interconnect the devices must also support multicast (or broadcast) propagation to all participants ("talk to all devices", see above)

  • a hub or switch to connect the devices might disqualify the setup as "ad hoc", as this would be an intermediate device (1).

  • the participating devices have a means to manage addressing on the emerging common subnet themselves (IPv4: APIPA, IPv6: link-local addresses with DAD), if the given underlying technology does not provide unique identifiers natively

  • the participating devices support suitable service announcement/discovery mechanisms and if needed some form of name resolution, so they have a way to find each other and find out what they can do with each other. Multicast based Zeroconf Networking (a.k.a. "Bonjour" or "Avahi") can do this.


... then yes, I would consider such a setup might be called an "ad hoc wired network".





(1) that might be subject of debate because a simple hub or switch fulfills the criterion of "little or no planning" with ease.






share|improve this answer























  • I would consider that a switch disqualifies an ad hoc network, although a hub is really just a powered cable, repeating the signals, even the collisions and damaged signals, to to every interface.
    – Ron Maupin
    9 hours ago










  • I disagree - so long as it's a switch that does no configuration of its clients, ie doesn't also have a DHCP server or similar, then I would describe the client network communication as ad-hoc.
    – pjc50
    8 hours ago










  • @pjc50, a switch is a bridge, just like a WAP is a bridge. They both serve the same function, so how does one make an ad hoc network, while the other does not?
    – Ron Maupin
    8 hours ago








  • 1




    In the end, it comes down to your definition of "little or no planning", and at what layers you're interested in. Certainly people make ad-hoc point-to-point connections over wired ethernet, SLIP/RS-232, USB. I've made fileservers over hotel networks when ethernet sockets were common, which counts as "the network" for many end users. Many technical conferences have open wired networks with RFC 2322 DHCP. Which of these you count depends on your own understanding of ad-hoc in your contexts.
    – jonathanjo
    7 hours ago


















up vote
-1
down vote













The term "ad-hoc" is used to distinguish a peer-to-peer wireless network from an access-point based "managed" one.



Wired networks on the other hand always use a symmetric signaling layer, so no such distinction exists, which is why you see the word used rather seldom in wired contexts.



There may be some confusion because Windows 95/98 had a wizard to set up private IP addresses on an interface that was also called "Set up ad-hoc networking".






share|improve this answer























  • I don't know what's confusing about it: that's an ad-hoc wired network, rare though it might be in comparison to ad-hoc wifi. And I'd disagree about "ad-hoc" meaning "peer-to-peer". It means "without planning", and normally implies temporary.
    – jonathanjo
    6 hours ago











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "496"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fnetworkengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f55465%2fare-ad-hoc-networks-always-wireless%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
6
down vote













Caveat: This question might raise primarily opinion-based answers, and might be put on hold or considered off-topic, for exactly that reason.



Still, I dare to attempt an answer:



Following https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc#Networking




The term “ad hoc networking” typically refers to a system of network
elements that combine to form a network requiring little or no
planning.




The linked main wikipedia article subsequently focusses on wireless ad hoc networks only.



However, I don't quite see why a wired ad hoc network should not be thinkable, if a few conditions are met:




  • the devices to be connected all have an network interface of matching technology ("Ethernet" springs to mind).

  • there is a means to wire them all together, in a fashion that any participating device can talk to any (and to all) other participating device (Star? Bus? Ring? Anyone remeber 10base2?)

  • the medium and topology chosen to interconnect the devices must also support multicast (or broadcast) propagation to all participants ("talk to all devices", see above)

  • a hub or switch to connect the devices might disqualify the setup as "ad hoc", as this would be an intermediate device (1).

  • the participating devices have a means to manage addressing on the emerging common subnet themselves (IPv4: APIPA, IPv6: link-local addresses with DAD), if the given underlying technology does not provide unique identifiers natively

  • the participating devices support suitable service announcement/discovery mechanisms and if needed some form of name resolution, so they have a way to find each other and find out what they can do with each other. Multicast based Zeroconf Networking (a.k.a. "Bonjour" or "Avahi") can do this.


... then yes, I would consider such a setup might be called an "ad hoc wired network".





(1) that might be subject of debate because a simple hub or switch fulfills the criterion of "little or no planning" with ease.






share|improve this answer























  • I would consider that a switch disqualifies an ad hoc network, although a hub is really just a powered cable, repeating the signals, even the collisions and damaged signals, to to every interface.
    – Ron Maupin
    9 hours ago










  • I disagree - so long as it's a switch that does no configuration of its clients, ie doesn't also have a DHCP server or similar, then I would describe the client network communication as ad-hoc.
    – pjc50
    8 hours ago










  • @pjc50, a switch is a bridge, just like a WAP is a bridge. They both serve the same function, so how does one make an ad hoc network, while the other does not?
    – Ron Maupin
    8 hours ago








  • 1




    In the end, it comes down to your definition of "little or no planning", and at what layers you're interested in. Certainly people make ad-hoc point-to-point connections over wired ethernet, SLIP/RS-232, USB. I've made fileservers over hotel networks when ethernet sockets were common, which counts as "the network" for many end users. Many technical conferences have open wired networks with RFC 2322 DHCP. Which of these you count depends on your own understanding of ad-hoc in your contexts.
    – jonathanjo
    7 hours ago















up vote
6
down vote













Caveat: This question might raise primarily opinion-based answers, and might be put on hold or considered off-topic, for exactly that reason.



Still, I dare to attempt an answer:



Following https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc#Networking




The term “ad hoc networking” typically refers to a system of network
elements that combine to form a network requiring little or no
planning.




The linked main wikipedia article subsequently focusses on wireless ad hoc networks only.



However, I don't quite see why a wired ad hoc network should not be thinkable, if a few conditions are met:




  • the devices to be connected all have an network interface of matching technology ("Ethernet" springs to mind).

  • there is a means to wire them all together, in a fashion that any participating device can talk to any (and to all) other participating device (Star? Bus? Ring? Anyone remeber 10base2?)

  • the medium and topology chosen to interconnect the devices must also support multicast (or broadcast) propagation to all participants ("talk to all devices", see above)

  • a hub or switch to connect the devices might disqualify the setup as "ad hoc", as this would be an intermediate device (1).

  • the participating devices have a means to manage addressing on the emerging common subnet themselves (IPv4: APIPA, IPv6: link-local addresses with DAD), if the given underlying technology does not provide unique identifiers natively

  • the participating devices support suitable service announcement/discovery mechanisms and if needed some form of name resolution, so they have a way to find each other and find out what they can do with each other. Multicast based Zeroconf Networking (a.k.a. "Bonjour" or "Avahi") can do this.


... then yes, I would consider such a setup might be called an "ad hoc wired network".





(1) that might be subject of debate because a simple hub or switch fulfills the criterion of "little or no planning" with ease.






share|improve this answer























  • I would consider that a switch disqualifies an ad hoc network, although a hub is really just a powered cable, repeating the signals, even the collisions and damaged signals, to to every interface.
    – Ron Maupin
    9 hours ago










  • I disagree - so long as it's a switch that does no configuration of its clients, ie doesn't also have a DHCP server or similar, then I would describe the client network communication as ad-hoc.
    – pjc50
    8 hours ago










  • @pjc50, a switch is a bridge, just like a WAP is a bridge. They both serve the same function, so how does one make an ad hoc network, while the other does not?
    – Ron Maupin
    8 hours ago








  • 1




    In the end, it comes down to your definition of "little or no planning", and at what layers you're interested in. Certainly people make ad-hoc point-to-point connections over wired ethernet, SLIP/RS-232, USB. I've made fileservers over hotel networks when ethernet sockets were common, which counts as "the network" for many end users. Many technical conferences have open wired networks with RFC 2322 DHCP. Which of these you count depends on your own understanding of ad-hoc in your contexts.
    – jonathanjo
    7 hours ago













up vote
6
down vote










up vote
6
down vote









Caveat: This question might raise primarily opinion-based answers, and might be put on hold or considered off-topic, for exactly that reason.



Still, I dare to attempt an answer:



Following https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc#Networking




The term “ad hoc networking” typically refers to a system of network
elements that combine to form a network requiring little or no
planning.




The linked main wikipedia article subsequently focusses on wireless ad hoc networks only.



However, I don't quite see why a wired ad hoc network should not be thinkable, if a few conditions are met:




  • the devices to be connected all have an network interface of matching technology ("Ethernet" springs to mind).

  • there is a means to wire them all together, in a fashion that any participating device can talk to any (and to all) other participating device (Star? Bus? Ring? Anyone remeber 10base2?)

  • the medium and topology chosen to interconnect the devices must also support multicast (or broadcast) propagation to all participants ("talk to all devices", see above)

  • a hub or switch to connect the devices might disqualify the setup as "ad hoc", as this would be an intermediate device (1).

  • the participating devices have a means to manage addressing on the emerging common subnet themselves (IPv4: APIPA, IPv6: link-local addresses with DAD), if the given underlying technology does not provide unique identifiers natively

  • the participating devices support suitable service announcement/discovery mechanisms and if needed some form of name resolution, so they have a way to find each other and find out what they can do with each other. Multicast based Zeroconf Networking (a.k.a. "Bonjour" or "Avahi") can do this.


... then yes, I would consider such a setup might be called an "ad hoc wired network".





(1) that might be subject of debate because a simple hub or switch fulfills the criterion of "little or no planning" with ease.






share|improve this answer














Caveat: This question might raise primarily opinion-based answers, and might be put on hold or considered off-topic, for exactly that reason.



Still, I dare to attempt an answer:



Following https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc#Networking




The term “ad hoc networking” typically refers to a system of network
elements that combine to form a network requiring little or no
planning.




The linked main wikipedia article subsequently focusses on wireless ad hoc networks only.



However, I don't quite see why a wired ad hoc network should not be thinkable, if a few conditions are met:




  • the devices to be connected all have an network interface of matching technology ("Ethernet" springs to mind).

  • there is a means to wire them all together, in a fashion that any participating device can talk to any (and to all) other participating device (Star? Bus? Ring? Anyone remeber 10base2?)

  • the medium and topology chosen to interconnect the devices must also support multicast (or broadcast) propagation to all participants ("talk to all devices", see above)

  • a hub or switch to connect the devices might disqualify the setup as "ad hoc", as this would be an intermediate device (1).

  • the participating devices have a means to manage addressing on the emerging common subnet themselves (IPv4: APIPA, IPv6: link-local addresses with DAD), if the given underlying technology does not provide unique identifiers natively

  • the participating devices support suitable service announcement/discovery mechanisms and if needed some form of name resolution, so they have a way to find each other and find out what they can do with each other. Multicast based Zeroconf Networking (a.k.a. "Bonjour" or "Avahi") can do this.


... then yes, I would consider such a setup might be called an "ad hoc wired network".





(1) that might be subject of debate because a simple hub or switch fulfills the criterion of "little or no planning" with ease.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 8 hours ago

























answered 12 hours ago









Marc 'netztier' Luethi

2,949319




2,949319












  • I would consider that a switch disqualifies an ad hoc network, although a hub is really just a powered cable, repeating the signals, even the collisions and damaged signals, to to every interface.
    – Ron Maupin
    9 hours ago










  • I disagree - so long as it's a switch that does no configuration of its clients, ie doesn't also have a DHCP server or similar, then I would describe the client network communication as ad-hoc.
    – pjc50
    8 hours ago










  • @pjc50, a switch is a bridge, just like a WAP is a bridge. They both serve the same function, so how does one make an ad hoc network, while the other does not?
    – Ron Maupin
    8 hours ago








  • 1




    In the end, it comes down to your definition of "little or no planning", and at what layers you're interested in. Certainly people make ad-hoc point-to-point connections over wired ethernet, SLIP/RS-232, USB. I've made fileservers over hotel networks when ethernet sockets were common, which counts as "the network" for many end users. Many technical conferences have open wired networks with RFC 2322 DHCP. Which of these you count depends on your own understanding of ad-hoc in your contexts.
    – jonathanjo
    7 hours ago


















  • I would consider that a switch disqualifies an ad hoc network, although a hub is really just a powered cable, repeating the signals, even the collisions and damaged signals, to to every interface.
    – Ron Maupin
    9 hours ago










  • I disagree - so long as it's a switch that does no configuration of its clients, ie doesn't also have a DHCP server or similar, then I would describe the client network communication as ad-hoc.
    – pjc50
    8 hours ago










  • @pjc50, a switch is a bridge, just like a WAP is a bridge. They both serve the same function, so how does one make an ad hoc network, while the other does not?
    – Ron Maupin
    8 hours ago








  • 1




    In the end, it comes down to your definition of "little or no planning", and at what layers you're interested in. Certainly people make ad-hoc point-to-point connections over wired ethernet, SLIP/RS-232, USB. I've made fileservers over hotel networks when ethernet sockets were common, which counts as "the network" for many end users. Many technical conferences have open wired networks with RFC 2322 DHCP. Which of these you count depends on your own understanding of ad-hoc in your contexts.
    – jonathanjo
    7 hours ago
















I would consider that a switch disqualifies an ad hoc network, although a hub is really just a powered cable, repeating the signals, even the collisions and damaged signals, to to every interface.
– Ron Maupin
9 hours ago




I would consider that a switch disqualifies an ad hoc network, although a hub is really just a powered cable, repeating the signals, even the collisions and damaged signals, to to every interface.
– Ron Maupin
9 hours ago












I disagree - so long as it's a switch that does no configuration of its clients, ie doesn't also have a DHCP server or similar, then I would describe the client network communication as ad-hoc.
– pjc50
8 hours ago




I disagree - so long as it's a switch that does no configuration of its clients, ie doesn't also have a DHCP server or similar, then I would describe the client network communication as ad-hoc.
– pjc50
8 hours ago












@pjc50, a switch is a bridge, just like a WAP is a bridge. They both serve the same function, so how does one make an ad hoc network, while the other does not?
– Ron Maupin
8 hours ago






@pjc50, a switch is a bridge, just like a WAP is a bridge. They both serve the same function, so how does one make an ad hoc network, while the other does not?
– Ron Maupin
8 hours ago






1




1




In the end, it comes down to your definition of "little or no planning", and at what layers you're interested in. Certainly people make ad-hoc point-to-point connections over wired ethernet, SLIP/RS-232, USB. I've made fileservers over hotel networks when ethernet sockets were common, which counts as "the network" for many end users. Many technical conferences have open wired networks with RFC 2322 DHCP. Which of these you count depends on your own understanding of ad-hoc in your contexts.
– jonathanjo
7 hours ago




In the end, it comes down to your definition of "little or no planning", and at what layers you're interested in. Certainly people make ad-hoc point-to-point connections over wired ethernet, SLIP/RS-232, USB. I've made fileservers over hotel networks when ethernet sockets were common, which counts as "the network" for many end users. Many technical conferences have open wired networks with RFC 2322 DHCP. Which of these you count depends on your own understanding of ad-hoc in your contexts.
– jonathanjo
7 hours ago










up vote
-1
down vote













The term "ad-hoc" is used to distinguish a peer-to-peer wireless network from an access-point based "managed" one.



Wired networks on the other hand always use a symmetric signaling layer, so no such distinction exists, which is why you see the word used rather seldom in wired contexts.



There may be some confusion because Windows 95/98 had a wizard to set up private IP addresses on an interface that was also called "Set up ad-hoc networking".






share|improve this answer























  • I don't know what's confusing about it: that's an ad-hoc wired network, rare though it might be in comparison to ad-hoc wifi. And I'd disagree about "ad-hoc" meaning "peer-to-peer". It means "without planning", and normally implies temporary.
    – jonathanjo
    6 hours ago















up vote
-1
down vote













The term "ad-hoc" is used to distinguish a peer-to-peer wireless network from an access-point based "managed" one.



Wired networks on the other hand always use a symmetric signaling layer, so no such distinction exists, which is why you see the word used rather seldom in wired contexts.



There may be some confusion because Windows 95/98 had a wizard to set up private IP addresses on an interface that was also called "Set up ad-hoc networking".






share|improve this answer























  • I don't know what's confusing about it: that's an ad-hoc wired network, rare though it might be in comparison to ad-hoc wifi. And I'd disagree about "ad-hoc" meaning "peer-to-peer". It means "without planning", and normally implies temporary.
    – jonathanjo
    6 hours ago













up vote
-1
down vote










up vote
-1
down vote









The term "ad-hoc" is used to distinguish a peer-to-peer wireless network from an access-point based "managed" one.



Wired networks on the other hand always use a symmetric signaling layer, so no such distinction exists, which is why you see the word used rather seldom in wired contexts.



There may be some confusion because Windows 95/98 had a wizard to set up private IP addresses on an interface that was also called "Set up ad-hoc networking".






share|improve this answer














The term "ad-hoc" is used to distinguish a peer-to-peer wireless network from an access-point based "managed" one.



Wired networks on the other hand always use a symmetric signaling layer, so no such distinction exists, which is why you see the word used rather seldom in wired contexts.



There may be some confusion because Windows 95/98 had a wizard to set up private IP addresses on an interface that was also called "Set up ad-hoc networking".







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 7 hours ago









Ron Maupin

61.3k1161110




61.3k1161110










answered 8 hours ago









Simon Richter

22312




22312












  • I don't know what's confusing about it: that's an ad-hoc wired network, rare though it might be in comparison to ad-hoc wifi. And I'd disagree about "ad-hoc" meaning "peer-to-peer". It means "without planning", and normally implies temporary.
    – jonathanjo
    6 hours ago


















  • I don't know what's confusing about it: that's an ad-hoc wired network, rare though it might be in comparison to ad-hoc wifi. And I'd disagree about "ad-hoc" meaning "peer-to-peer". It means "without planning", and normally implies temporary.
    – jonathanjo
    6 hours ago
















I don't know what's confusing about it: that's an ad-hoc wired network, rare though it might be in comparison to ad-hoc wifi. And I'd disagree about "ad-hoc" meaning "peer-to-peer". It means "without planning", and normally implies temporary.
– jonathanjo
6 hours ago




I don't know what's confusing about it: that's an ad-hoc wired network, rare though it might be in comparison to ad-hoc wifi. And I'd disagree about "ad-hoc" meaning "peer-to-peer". It means "without planning", and normally implies temporary.
– jonathanjo
6 hours ago


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Network Engineering Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fnetworkengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f55465%2fare-ad-hoc-networks-always-wireless%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Quarter-circle Tiles

build a pushdown automaton that recognizes the reverse language of a given pushdown automaton?

Mont Emei