10 May
2017
10 May
'17
8:22 p.m.
On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 19:05 +0200, Nk via lime-users wrote:
That is awesome thank you! Yes I’ll have a working
node within the
next week I hope, if you hear from Gui or anyone else who was had
experience with the C7s, please let me know, otherwise we won’t have
AC working on the C7s, unless somehow using LEDE [assuming we figure
out SDK] changes something.
Well... hope that the lime-sdk to be no issue, but just let us know.
The hard part for the Archer C7 is that it uses the ath10k firmware,
that is kind of a distant relative of the more 'stable' ath9k. ath10k
is still in development so you may expect glitches. As per my
understanding we don't have much experience on it, so whatever you do
will be useful for everyone.
The OM A60 is a dual band outdoor router, pretty cool,
also 230€
though, and only one 2.4 interface. We’re looking to deliver the
absolute best speeds possible with open source software [LiMe is our
choice ;] Our node will have two 2.4GHz 3x3 MIMO interfaces [one for
meshing] and one AC 5GHz interface for meshing [mesh interfaces with
external antennas always].
That is awesome, I believe that it is everyone's objective so your
research will be much appreciated.
I’m also thinking at this point we might be able to
connect up to 2
WANs per node [as the wan ports will be free according to my latest
mail and your confirmation]
If one node is composed of two devices then yes, one WAN port per
device means one possible connection to the Internet for each.
and have some kind of internet connection redundancy
on every
node!!!
How cool would that be?
That is a a bit of an odd use case but yes :) (in my experience
communities gather together to share one connection or two, not two per
node :) but still...)
I have no idea how LiMe chooses its gateway, if it pings the ISP
router, if it pings a public IP, if it does a speedtest, so I don’t
know if it would detect one of the two ISP routers being on and
active but without a working internet connection [say due to an
outage on one provider], or being slower, or having higher latency,
and intelligently only use the other WAN as an exit route, or both in
variable percentages according to their speeds and such, but this is
a whole separate question/topic.
As per I understand, LiMe uses the closest connection to get to the
Internet based on the latency of the connection.
We could do smarter things but, for now, this does the job.
I’ll do some tests ;]
Excelent!
Regards,
Thanks again!
On May 10, 2017, 7:03 PM +0200, Nicolas Pace <nico(a)libre.ws>ws>, wrote:
On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 18:45 +0200, Nk via
lime-users wrote:
_______________________________________________
lime-users mailing list
lime-users(a)lists.libremesh.org
https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-users Fantastic thank you so much.
Last question I promise: I’ve noticed in traceroute that when the
first router has wifi off and is ethernet meshing with the second
one, and I connect my laptop to the first router’s lan, like so:
Laptop <client over eth> router 1 <mesh over eth> router 2 <mesh
over
wifi> router 3 <client over eth> ISP router
There is no extra “hop” in the trace route output. I assume this
is
due to the layer 2 meshing, correct?
Exactly!
However, is this exactly comparable, in terms of
performance and
route selection, bandwidth, latency, and everything, in every
way, to
router 1 meshing over wifi directly with router 3 without going
through router 2, provided 1 and 2 have the exact same wireless
link
quality toward 3?
Batman-adv calculate which of the links it has from router 1 to 3
is
the best to send information through.
For instance, let’s say router 1 has a 5GHz AC
interface, and
router
2 has a 2.4GHz interface. If this were a single dual-band router,
LiMe would automagically select the best wireless interface to
mesh
with every other node on an individual basis,
The best interface (wireless or wired)
if I understand correctly. Does this dual-router
setup perfectly
replicate this behavior in your opinion, letting the C7 decide
whether to use its own faster but shorter range 5GHz interface or
whether to use the 2.4 interface of the 1043 just as if it were
its
own, without being influenced by the fact there’s a hardware-
level
"extra hop”? Or does it de-prioritize the 2.4 interface of the
1043
just because it’s one extra “hardware-level hop” away [please
excuse
the terminology]?
I believe batman-adv uses latency to determine which link it uses.
I’m asking this because I’m doing some hardware
hacking to build
what
we’re calling an openNODE, essentially a TL Archer C7 and a TL
1043
ND stuck together in a single package we’re making. It’s an
experiment to build a high performance dual band, triple-wifi-
interface node under 150€.
Awesome. Do tell us how it works on the C7, and if you have those
cheaper C3 to test on also!
[I’m simultaneously testing out lime-sdk to see
if we can get an
open mesh A60 working, thanks to you ;]
What's an open mesh A60 ?
The C7 will mesh over 5GHz [provided Gui
enlightens us as to how
to
get this working ;] and the 1043 will mesh over 2GHz. The only
wireless interface available to clients in AP mode will be the
2.4
secondary interface of the C7.
If the two act exactly as one, we’re golden. If not, I have to
understand the cons in having two mesh routers instead of a
single
dual-band mesh router per node.
If they both use libremesh, then they act as one.
There is nothing to do manually, except giving them meaningful
names :)
> Thank you so much again!
>
> Nk
>
> On May 10, 2017, 6:31 PM +0200, Nicolas Pace <nico(a)libre.ws>ws>,
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 15:50 +0200, Nk via lime-users wrote:
> > > Ok sorry so just to confirm, the options then are
> >
> > > 1] WAN to WAN and
> >
> > There is no WAN-to-WAN between LibreMesh routers... this is an
> > unexpected behaviour, but not desired nor recommended.
> >
> > > 2] LAN to LAN, and both routers can also have traditional LAN
> > > clients
> > > on the remaining 3 eth1 ports that receive DHCP as usual
> > > without
> > > any
> > > interference?
> >
> > Yes, this is the default and intended behaviour.
> >
> > > At this point my setup would be the one you can find
> > > attached. If
> > > you confirm it works, I’ll test it out tonight. Thank you so
> > > much.
> >
> > That is exactly the way you should use it!
> >
> > Awesome, tell us how it went!
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > > Nk
> > >
> > > On May 10, 2017, 3:37 PM +0200, Nicolas Pace <nico(a)libre.ws>ws>,
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 15:34 +0200, Nk via lime-users wrote:
> > > > > AHAHAHAH epic.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks Ilario, sorry to bother. My tests were first
> > > > > router’s
> > > > > LAN
> > > > > to
> > > > > second router’s WAN, and that wasn’t working. Are you
> > > > > saying
> > > > > they
> > > > > should be connected LAN to LAN [as an alternative to WAN
> > > > > to
> > > > > WAN
> > > > > which
> > > > > we know works perfectly]? Wouldn’t that cause a DHCP
> > > > > conflict?
> > > >
> > > > Not at all. That is the default behaviour of LibreMesh
> > > > (crazy,
> > > > right?
> > > > :) ).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Thank you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nk
> > > > >
> > > > > On May 10, 2017, 3:33 PM +0200, Ilario Gelmetti
> > > > > <iochesonome@
> > > > > gmai
> > > > > l.co
> > > > > m>, wrote:
> > > > > > On 05/10/2017 02:20 PM, Nikksno via lime-users wrote:
> > > > > > > If I use the eth1 of the first router to mesh with
> > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > routers
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > you're suggesting, the problem is that the
meshing
> > > > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > seem
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > happen correctly, as bmx6 shows the second
router's
> > > > > > > route
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > being eth1,
> > > > > > > but batman shows all routes to other nodes being over
> > > > > > > wlan
> > > > > > > mesh,
> > > > > > > even to
> > > > > > > the second router.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's not lan, it's not wan...
> > > > > > It's BATWAN nananananananananananananananana
> > > > > > batwaaaaaannn
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, seriously, I expected batman was present on
> > > > > > ethernet
> > > > > > LAN
> > > > > > interfaces...
> > > > > > They're also included in br-lan which is included in
> > > > > > bat0,
> > > > > > no?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you post these?
> > > > > > # brctl show
> > > > > > # batctl if
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree with nicopace, lan to lan should work.
> > > > > > @devs pls? Are ethernet ports with LAN proto not used
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > batman-
> > > > > > adv?
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > lime-users mailing list
> > > > > > lime-users(a)lists.libremesh.org
> > > > > > https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-users
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > lime-users mailing list
> > > > > lime-users(a)lists.libremesh.org
> > > > > https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-users
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > lime-users mailing list
> > > lime-users(a)lists.libremesh.org
> > > https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> lime-users mailing list
> lime-users(a)lists.libremesh.org
> https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-users