Different modes for different targets in lime-build [was: downloads.libre-mesh.org activated again]
21 Jul
2016
21 Jul
'16
2:45 p.m.
2016-07-13 15:39 GMT+02:00 p4u <pau(a)dabax.net>et>:
Good point is that now we have many more targets
(routers) available.
I've even tested different architectures such as x86 (which works fine)
and RAMIPS (which does not work fine in Ad-Hoc but it does in 802.11s
mode).
So, from my understanding there are architectures where trying to set both
ad-hoc and ap modes is not going to work, or it would be better to set
802.11s and ap instead (as Pau told for ramips), right?
In my opinion (ap + ad-hoc | just ap | ap + 802.11s) selection could be
made by lime-build depending of the selected target architecture.
lime-build could do this setting different lime-defaults depending on the
target (not implemented yet).
Otherwise I suspect that we should move some files [1] from lime-system to
new packages lime-mode-adhoc and lime-mode-ieee80211s (and stop using
lime-full), then specifying the wanted packages in the targets files [2].
Byyye,
Ilario
[1] at least these
https://github.com/libre-mesh/lime-packages/tree/develop/packages/lime-syst…
[2] https://github.com/libre-mesh/lime-build/tree/develop/targets
21 Jul
21 Jul
3:53 p.m.
I would not use lime-build directly for this. Instead I would create
packages with different set of targets, for instance lime-full-11s or
lime-full-adhoc. Then lime-build can have a Profile which selects the
corresponding package.
On 21/07/16 16:45, Ilario wrote:
2016-07-13 15:39 GMT+02:00 p4u <pau(a)dabax.net
<mailto:pau@dabax.net>>:
Good point is that now we have many more targets (routers) available.
I've even tested different architectures such as x86 (which works
fine)
and RAMIPS (which does not work fine in Ad-Hoc but it does in
802.11s mode).
So, from my understanding there are architectures where trying to set
both ad-hoc and ap modes is not going to work, or it would be better
to set 802.11s and ap instead (as Pau told for ramips), right?
In my opinion (ap + ad-hoc | just ap | ap + 802.11s) selection could
be made by lime-build depending of the selected target architecture.
lime-build could do this setting different lime-defaults depending on
the target (not implemented yet).
Otherwise I suspect that we should move some files [1] from
lime-system to new packages lime-mode-adhoc and lime-mode-ieee80211s
(and stop using lime-full), then specifying the wanted packages in the
targets files [2].
Byyye,
Ilario
[1] at least these
https://github.com/libre-mesh/lime-packages/tree/develop/packages/lime-syst…
[2] https://github.com/libre-mesh/lime-build/tree/develop/targets
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
Dev(a)lists.libre-mesh.org
https://lists.libre-mesh.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
25 Jul
25 Jul
11 a.m.
I agree that this is a way better approach: to make new profiles rather
than using targets.
Also a profile with no access point interface would be useful.
I think that the only problem here is to split lime-system (from
lime-system to lime-system + lime-mode-ap + lime-mode-adhoc +
lime-mode-ieee80211s) without triggering new bugs.
What do you think about this risk?
Just moving the /usr/lib/lua/lime/mode/* files to new packages could be
enough?
Is it safe to do?
If it is, should we work for including it in the coming release?
Ciao!
Ilario
2016-07-21 17:53 GMT+02:00 p4u <pau(a)dabax.net>et>:
I would not use lime-build directly for this. Instead
I would create
packages with different set of targets, for instance lime-full-11s or
lime-full-adhoc. Then lime-build can have a Profile which selects the
corresponding package.
On 21/07/16 16:45, Ilario wrote:
2016-07-13 15:39 GMT+02:00 p4u <pau(a)dabax.net>et>:
Good point is that now we have many more targets
(routers) available.
I've even tested different architectures such as x86 (which works fine)
and RAMIPS (which does not work fine in Ad-Hoc but it does in 802.11s
mode).
So, from my understanding there are architectures where trying to set both
ad-hoc and ap modes is not going to work, or it would be better to set
802.11s and ap instead (as Pau told for ramips), right?
In my opinion (ap + ad-hoc | just ap | ap + 802.11s) selection could be
made by lime-build depending of the selected target architecture.
lime-build could do this setting different lime-defaults depending on the
target (not implemented yet).
Otherwise I suspect that we should move some files [1] from lime-system to
new packages lime-mode-adhoc and lime-mode-ieee80211s (and stop using
lime-full), then specifying the wanted packages in the targets files [2].
Byyye,
Ilario
[1] at least these
https://github.com/libre-mesh/lime-packages/tree/develop/packages/lime-syst…
[2] https://github.com/libre-mesh/lime-build/tree/develop/targets
11:06 a.m.
Hi Ilario.
I'm not sure it is a good idea.
Do you really think that lime-mode-ap makes a difference? I think we are
talking about very few bytes involved, so I don't think it is worth to
split the packets to this point.
Cheers.
On 25/07/16 13:00, Ilario wrote:
I agree that this is a way better approach: to make
new profiles
rather than using targets.
Also a profile with no access point interface would be useful.
I think that the only problem here is to split lime-system (from
lime-system to lime-system + lime-mode-ap + lime-mode-adhoc +
lime-mode-ieee80211s) without triggering new bugs.
What do you think about this risk?
Just moving the /usr/lib/lua/lime/mode/* files to new packages could
be enough?
Is it safe to do?
If it is, should we work for including it in the coming release?
Ciao!
Ilario
2016-07-21 17:53 GMT+02:00 p4u <pau(a)dabax.net <mailto:pau@dabax.net>>:
I would not use lime-build directly for this. Instead I would
create packages with different set of targets, for instance
lime-full-11s or lime-full-adhoc. Then lime-build can have a
Profile which selects the corresponding package.
On 21/07/16 16:45, Ilario wrote:
2016-07-13 15:39 GMT+02:00 p4u
<pau(a)dabax.net
<mailto:pau@dabax.net>>:
Good point is that now we have many more targets (routers)
available.
I've even tested different architectures such as x86 (which
works fine)
and RAMIPS (which does not work fine in Ad-Hoc but it does in
802.11s mode).
So, from my understanding there are architectures where trying to
set both ad-hoc and ap modes is not going to work, or it would be
better to set 802.11s and ap instead (as Pau told for ramips), right?
In my opinion (ap + ad-hoc | just ap | ap + 802.11s) selection
could be made by lime-build depending of the selected target
architecture.
lime-build could do this setting different lime-defaults
depending on the target (not implemented yet).
Otherwise I suspect that we should move some files [1] from
lime-system to new packages lime-mode-adhoc and
lime-mode-ieee80211s (and stop using lime-full), then specifying
the wanted packages in the targets files [2].
Byyye,
Ilario
[1] at least these
https://github.com/libre-mesh/lime-packages/tree/develop/packages/lime-syst…
[2] https://github.com/libre-mesh/lime-build/tree/develop/targets
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
Dev(a)lists.libre-mesh.org
https://lists.libre-mesh.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
11:23 a.m.
2016-07-25 13:06 GMT+02:00 p4u <pau(a)dabax.net>et>:
Do you really think that lime-mode-ap makes a
difference? I think we are
talking about very few bytes involved, so I don't think it is worth to
split the packets to this point.
Sure that is not a problem of saving bytes!
It's just because in some situations you don't need/want also an ap on the
device.
For example on some hardware having both ap and adhoc interfaces on the
same radio is not going to work (am I right?), so, depending on the use
case you may want to have just the ap or the adhoc (or the ieee80211s)
interface there.
Does it make sense?
11:45 a.m.
But then you can just make a proper /etc/config/lime file with such
configuration. I mean, this is the idea behind this main config file.
You are right, some devices might not work with adhoc... but still I'm
not sure if they would work good enough even in 11s, would be nice to
try (I only tested in two devices).
Maybe (IMO) it would make sense to crate some other collection like
lime-full-11s or just create a new Profile in lime-build. But I would
not modify the AP or other stuff.
On 25/07/16 13:23, Ilario wrote:
2016-07-25 13:06 GMT+02:00 p4u <pau(a)dabax.net
<mailto:pau@dabax.net>>:
Do you really think that lime-mode-ap makes a difference? I think
we are talking about very few bytes involved, so I don't think it
is worth to split the packets to this point.
Sure that is not a problem of saving bytes!
It's just because in some situations you don't need/want also an ap on
the device.
For example on some hardware having both ap and adhoc interfaces on
the same radio is not going to work (am I right?), so, depending on
the use case you may want to have just the ap or the adhoc (or the
ieee80211s) interface there.
Does it make sense?
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
Dev(a)lists.libre-mesh.org
https://lists.libre-mesh.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
3071
days inactive
3075
days old
5 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Ilario -
p4u