Again. No SSH, no web, no ping.
https://libre-mesh.org
Let's do a copy for high availability. Isaac said to do it in his server. I also can do it in one of our servers. I'm sure that all of you have others servers.
Now we can do a copy, but if you want to have it distributed servers we can make it available from several sharing same IP with BGP in internet.
We can do a lot of things, but not let it down... is a bad image for the project.
Habemus Firmware!
After a day of debugging with Al here in garraf and some our spent on fixing
make files, and make address generation simpler and human understandable libre-
mesh finally compile, you can find the images ready for testing on torvic in
/home/openwrt/lime-g/bin/
See you soon
P.S. We did realized after some work that there is some unmerged Guii work in
the repo and also that there will be some conflict on merging, so please do the
merge toghether so we can decide what to keep and what to not keep
As we can read in this thread [0] dnsmasq doesn't permit to specify a custom
mtu for ipv6, this is needed on out setup to avoid batman-adv level
fragmentation, so the actual solution in dnsmasq doesn't work because it
requires to put a lower mtu on specified interface and we cannot ( and don't
want to do this )
Gui can you ask to dnsmasq developer to add this option so dnsmasq can work
good also on our setup ?
[0] http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/2013q2/007160.html
P.S. With al we have debuged some mtu iussue and committed fixes
Hi!
I don't remember well if finally we got to have libre-mesh enough stable for
use/testing, or if we are still experiencing random strange problems, do we
have some news after hackmeeting ?
The other day I was in a talk about guifi in madrid, and also talked a little
about libre-mesh, the result is that people of guifi madrid are very interested
in using libre-mesh, because it seems it is more adapt to their network
topology ( at moment they use point to multipoint and seems this is affecting
negativley the growing rate of the netowork )
BTW from what i eared they have mostly ubiquity devices, with just one
ethernet port that with libre-mesh will be needed both for mesh and client
access, so stable working vlan is now a must ( disabling mesh or client access
on eth0 to cope with tplink switch bugs is not acceptable anymore ) so let's
see what we can do ;)
Moreover we are trying to organize a little hackerasmus session during xmas
vacation, hopefully we can advance with the firmware ;)
bye!
The resume is he have no time to do it now, but if we send to him patches for
netifd he will merge them.
He suggest start working on latest netifd used by openwrt trunk
<G10h4ck> Hi!
<nbd> hi
<G10h4ck> I am gioacchino from libre-mesh
<G10h4ck> before anything
<G10h4ck> many thanks for implementing mac-vlan in uci
<G10h4ck> now we need something very similar for 802.1ad vlan
<G10h4ck> this would help us and more people affected by tplink shitty bridges
<G10h4ck> because we have tested and 802.1ad vlan packets are not dropped by
the switch, while it drop 802.1q
<G10h4ck> in this page also it is reported something
http://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/networking/network.interfaces
<nbd> right, this would need to be implemented in netifd
<nbd> the code has to be changed to use netlink instead of ioctl to configure
vlan devices
<G10h4ck> i imagining something very similar to what you done with mac-vlan,
am i wrong ?
<nbd> it's a bit similar
<nbd> but involves more rework of the existing code
<G10h4ck> are you planning to do this soon ?
<nbd> i don't have time to work on this at the moment
<G10h4ck> ok
<G10h4ck> how is going work with ath9k ?
<G10h4ck> i remember at last WCW you talked to me about a feature that would
increase speed, and cannot be easly implemented by proprietary driver because
they work a lot at firware level
<G10h4ck> while a good amount of memory was needed to implement that ( i
remember the precondition but not the feature :P )
<nbd> it's mostly a latency improvement
<nbd> still working on it, but much of the infrastructure for it is done
<G10h4ck> many thanks :D
<nbd> you're welcome
<G10h4ck> nbd if we do a patch for netifd, there is to have the patch
integrated soon ?
<G10h4ck> because some time some patch need eons to be integrated :P
<G10h4ck> and from what branch do you suggest to start working on this ?
<nbd> if you send a patch against netifd, i will review it and merge it when
it's okay
<G10h4ck> ok
<nbd> you should work on it with the latest git version of netifd
<nbd> used in openwrt trunk
<nbd> brb
<G10h4ck> thanks, see you soon!
Hey Axel,
here i am, haunting your dreams again with tricky questions... ;)
[i'm trying to get all interfaces of a node have public ipv6 addresses,
instead of the fd66:66:66:: autogenerated ones.
but ipAutoPrefix is not flexible enough, and assigning addresses
manually (outside of bmx6) and then using bmx6 globalPrefix would be a
hassle. the ideal would be to leverage bmx6 ipAutoPrefix feature, but
with a smaller prefix (/64)]
ipAutoPrefix currently needs to be a /56, so that two bytes can be set
to the interface index, and form a /64.
Why does each interface *need* to have a /64?
could it be simply a /128? (or something smaller than a /64, at least)
(outside of ULA space, it's relatively uncommon to have a /56 available
for each node; a /60 would be more realistic, and /64 would be ideal)
currently scheme AFAIU:
XXXX:XXXX:XXXX:00II:MMMM:MMff:feMM:MMMM/64
Xs = ipAutoPrefix nibbles
II = interface index
Ms = mac nibbles
maybe this could work the same:
XXXX:XXXX:XXXX:XXXX:00II:MMMM:MMMM:MMMM/80
this way, ipAutoPrefix can be a /64,
interface id is still there
and while the EUI-64 format is dropped, i don't think that's a problem?
i understand each interface should have it's own distinct network, as it
is now. so, to maintain that, the size is a /80 (yay!)
but maybe it could turn directly into a /128, like i asked before?
again, i'm not sure how these addresses are used / why they are needed,
so feel free to say simply "no, that wouldn't work at all" or "that'd
break backwards compatibility"
have a nice weekend, as always!
gui
----- Mensaje original -----
> De: "Asier Garaialde - GipuzkoaShare" <agaraialde(a)gipuzkoashare.net>
> Para: guifi-euskalherria(a)llistes.guifi.net
> Enviados: Martes, 5 de Noviembre 2013 10:15:17
> Asunto: Re: [guifi-euskalherria] [guifi-users] Próximas actividades
> de Guifi.net
> Kaixo Al,
> Me gustó mucho la charla que disteis sobre LibreMesh
Muchas gracias, les he traspasado tu feedback a los charlistas :)
> y quiero empezar
> a hacer unas pruebas. El firm de LibreMesh esta ya suficientemente
> 'maduro' como para hacer pruebas en semi-producción o todavía está
> para utilizar únicamente en entornos de testeo? Me lanzo a probar
> con LibreMesh o todavia es conveniente usar qMp?
> Pues eso...
> Me hubiese gustado quedarme para charlar con vostros mas
> tranquilamente pero por rollos del curro, el sabado por la tarde
> tuve que salir escopeteado...
> Aio!
Óbviamente el firm de Libre-mesh no está suficientemente maduro, pero las otras redes en las que ha venido trabajando el equipo de Libre-mesh sí que tiene el conocimiento necesario para ayudaros en crear una red en producción para una comunidad. Dinos qué necesitas (número de nodos, qué zona, si es entorno rural/ciudad, qué recursos teneis,...) y te podemos ayudar a buscar la mejor solución. Lo que salga de ahí en un futuro tendrá la posibilidad de hacer un upgrade a la primera versión recomendada para uso autónomo de Libre-mesh.
