10 May
2017
10 May
'17
5:03 p.m.
On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 18:45 +0200, Nk via lime-users wrote:
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:
_______________________________________________
lime-users mailing list
lime-users(a)lists.libremesh.org
https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-users 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