10 May
2017
10 May
'17
5:05 p.m.
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.
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].
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] and have some
kind of internet connection redundancy on every node!!! How cool would that be? 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.
I’ll do some tests ;]
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:
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