28 Mar
2017
28 Mar
'17
2:13 p.m.
Hi all,
Thanks for previous help getting nanostation M2 working. It worked
great downgrading first to AirOS 5.5.11 then installing the nano
factory firmware.
I have two M2's, and they have automatically meshed and we can connect
two devices to their ethernet ports, the devices both get IP address
and we can ping between the connected devices! All good! (Except there
is no gateway IP issued - is that expected?)
Now the quesiton is: how do we set one of the mesh devices to _take_
DHCP through the LAN port rather than give it, and to be the 'gateway'
device on the mesh network, and then what will happen with devices
that subsequently connect to the mesh? How will they get their gateway
set?
Thanks for help! Sorry if this is a bit of a newb question, it's not
immediately clear from the configuration docs, any rtfm answer
pointing to speciifc documentation also appreciated.
James
28 Mar
28 Mar
2:44 p.m.
New subject: [lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and nanostation M2 update)
Do not apologize for making such a questions. It is actually a pity that
something as basic as what you want to do is not clear for the end user.
That is a clear example that we need to put more efforts on
documentation. Please give me few minutes to answer properly to your
question, but instead of writing it in the ML I'll make a new webpage
entry so others might use it.
On 28/03/17 16:13, James Lewis wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks for previous help getting nanostation M2 working. It worked
great downgrading first to AirOS 5.5.11 then installing the nano
factory firmware.
I have two M2's, and they have automatically meshed and we can connect
two devices to their ethernet ports, the devices both get IP address
and we can ping between the connected devices! All good! (Except there
is no gateway IP issued - is that expected?)
Now the quesiton is: how do we set one of the mesh devices to _take_
DHCP through the LAN port rather than give it, and to be the 'gateway'
device on the mesh network, and then what will happen with devices
that subsequently connect to the mesh? How will they get their gateway
set?
Thanks for help! Sorry if this is a bit of a newb question, it's not
immediately clear from the configuration docs, any rtfm answer
pointing to speciifc documentation also appreciated.
James
_______________________________________________
lime-users mailing list
lime-users(a)lists.libremesh.org
https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-users
--
./p4u
2:59 p.m.
New subject: [lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and nanostation M2 update)
2017-03-28 16:44 GMT+02:00 Pau <pau(a)dabax.net>et>:
Please give me few minutes to answer properly to your
question, but instead of writing it in the ML I'll make a new webpage
entry so others might use it.
Great! :D
On 28/03/17 16:13, James Lewis wrote:
> Now the quesiton is: how do we set one of the mesh devices to _take_
> DHCP through the LAN port rather than give it, and to be the 'gateway'
> device on the mesh network, and then what will happen with devices
> that subsequently connect to the mesh? How will they get their gateway
> set?
There are two ways in your case:
* configuring LibreMesh for using that ethernet port as WAN (as Pau is
going to write in the web);
* otherwise just plugging the cable from the gateway device into the
secondary port of Nanostation M2 (your model has 2 ethernet ports,
right?)
Bye!
Ilario
4:41 p.m.
New subject: [lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and nanostation M2 update)
On 28/03/17
16:13, James Lewis wrote:
> Now the quesiton is: how do we set one of the mesh devices to _take_
> DHCP through the LAN port rather than give it, and to be the 'gateway'
> device on the mesh network, and then what will happen with devices
> that subsequently connect to the mesh? How will they get their gateway
> set?
There are two ways in your case:
* configuring LibreMesh for using that ethernet port as WAN (as Pau is
going to write in the web); * otherwise just plugging the cable from the gateway
device into the
secondary port of Nanostation M2 (your model has 2 ethernet ports,
right?)
No, I have the little M2 which only has one ethernet port.
I do have eth0 and eth1 interfaces though - perhaps this firmware also
built for the
other M2 also and is expecting a second ethernet port:
Should i / can I disable eth1 interface?
Thanks!
James
Bye!
Ilario
_______________________________________________
lime-users mailing list
lime-users(a)lists.libremesh.org
https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-users
--
-- lewis.james(a)gmail.com
4:54 p.m.
New subject: [lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and nanostation M2 update)
On 03/28/2017 06:41 PM, James Lewis wrote:
Great, this is what we thought and tried, but perhaps got something wrong
somewhere as it didn't work. Look forward to Pau's docs.
Did you modify just the /etc/config/lime* files or also the others?
I have no idea if this can be done also via the web-ui (I don't think so).
Ah ok! So it's a Ubiquiti NanoStation M2 LoCo
On 28/03/17 16:13, James Lewis wrote:
> Now the quesiton is: how do we set one of the mesh devices to _take_
> DHCP through the LAN port rather than give it, and to be the 'gateway'
> device on the mesh network, and then what will happen with devices
> that subsequently connect to the mesh? How will they get their gateway
> set?
There are two ways in your case:
* configuring LibreMesh for using that ethernet port as WAN (as Pau is
going to write in the web); * otherwise
just plugging the cable from the gateway device into the
secondary port of Nanostation M2 (your model has 2 ethernet ports,
right?)
No, I have the little M2 which only has one ethernet port. I do have eth0 and eth1 interfaces though
For the LoCo XM model (as well for other models with just 1 ethernet
port) the "bullet" image should be used [1]. For XW hardware with one
ethernet port (also stuff like newest AirGrid models) there's a
"loco-m-xw" image.
If you see two ethernet could be because you used the "nano" image.
I suppose that there's no problem of having an unused eth1...?
Ciao!
Ilario
[1] https://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/ubiquiti/airmaxm
5:08 p.m.
New subject: [lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and nanostation M2 update)
On 28/03/17 18:54, Ilario Gelmetti wrote:
On 03/28/2017 06:41 PM, James Lewis wrote:
>>> On 28/03/17 16:13, James Lewis wrote:
>>>> Now the quesiton is: how do we set one of the mesh devices to _take_
>>>> DHCP through the LAN port rather than give it, and to be the
'gateway'
>>>> device on the mesh network, and then what will happen with devices
>>>> that subsequently connect to the mesh? How will they get their gateway
>>>> set?
>>
>> There are two ways in your case:
>> * configuring LibreMesh for using that ethernet port as WAN (as Pau is
>> going to write in the web);
>
> Great, this is what we thought and tried, but perhaps got something wrong
> somewhere as it didn't work. Look forward to Pau's docs.
Let's see if it helps you understand how it works.
http://libremesh.org/docs/changing_network_behavior.html
Feel free to make comments and/or send modifications via pull-request.
We are working on the LiMe Web interface and soon this kind of
configuration will be available via Web, but for the moment it is only
possible via shell.
Did you modify just the /etc/config/lime* files or
also the others?
I have no idea if this can be done also via the web-ui (I don't think so).
Ah ok! So it's a Ubiquiti NanoStation M2 LoCo
I think the eth1 controller exist but the physical port is just not
attached.
*
otherwise just plugging the cable from the gateway device into the
secondary port of Nanostation M2 (your model has 2 ethernet ports,
right?)
No, I have the little M2 which only has one ethernet port. I do have eth0 and eth1 interfaces though
For the LoCo XM model (as well for other models with just 1 ethernet
port) the "bullet" image should be used [1]. For XW hardware with one
ethernet port (also stuff like newest AirGrid models) there's a
"loco-m-xw" image.
If you see two ethernet could be because you used the "nano" image.
I suppose that there's no problem of having an unused eth1...?
Ciao!
Ilario
[1] https://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/ubiquiti/airmaxm
_______________________________________________
lime-users mailing list
lime-users(a)lists.libremesh.org
https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-users
--
./p4u
29 Mar
29 Mar
12:13 p.m.
New subject: [lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and nanostation M2 update)
Pau,
Thanks for the info.
It appears that you can do this through the UI. I tried adding the
lines as per the doc to /etc/config/lime, then ran lime-config but it
didn't seem to make any difference - eth1 was still shown as being in
wan.
I then made the change through the UI - added eth0 to wan instead of
eth1, and it then got DHCP ok.
But, no devices connecting to the mesh networking could route out
through that connection (their gateways were set correctly to
10.13.0.1, all mesh devices were talking to each other, and the mesh
device with the gateway could connect to internet devices fine)
So, I tried adding manual NAT settings [1], and this made everything work!
Is that the correct way to set up the gateway device, or is there a
setting somewhere in the libremesh firmware that should have taken
care of this for me?
Thanks again
James
[1] (obviously with interface names changed)
iptables -A FORWARD -i wlan1 -o wlan0 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A FORWARD -i wlan0 -o wlan1 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED \
-j ACCEPT
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o wlan0 -j MASQUERADE
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Pau <pau(a)dabax.net> wrote:
On 28/03/17 18:54, Ilario Gelmetti wrote:
--
-- lewis.james(a)gmail.com
On 03/28/2017 06:41 PM, James Lewis wrote:
>>> On 28/03/17 16:13, James Lewis wrote:
>>>> Now the quesiton is: how do we set one of the mesh devices to _take_
>>>> DHCP through the LAN port rather than give it, and to be the
'gateway'
>>>> device on the mesh network, and then what will happen with devices
>>>> that subsequently connect to the mesh? How will they get their gateway
>>>> set?
>>
>> There are two ways in your case:
>> * configuring LibreMesh for using that ethernet port as WAN (as Pau is
>> going to write in the web);
>
> Great, this is what we thought and tried, but perhaps got something wrong
> somewhere as it didn't work. Look forward to Pau's docs.
Let's see if it helps you understand how it works.
http://libremesh.org/docs/changing_network_behavior.html
Feel free to make comments and/or send modifications via pull-request.
We are working on the LiMe Web interface and soon this kind of
configuration will be available via Web, but for the moment it is only
possible via shell.
Did you modify just the /etc/config/lime* files
or also the others?
I have no idea if this can be done also via the web-ui (I don't think so).
Ah ok! So it's a Ubiquiti NanoStation M2 LoCo
I think the eth1 controller exist but the physical port is just not
attached.
*
otherwise just plugging the cable from the gateway device into the
secondary port of Nanostation M2 (your model has 2 ethernet ports,
right?)
No, I have the little M2 which only has one ethernet port. I do have eth0 and eth1 interfaces though
For the LoCo XM model (as well for other models with just 1 ethernet
port) the "bullet" image should be used [1]. For XW hardware with one
ethernet port (also stuff like newest AirGrid models) there's a
"loco-m-xw" image.
If you see two ethernet could be because you used the "nano" image.
I suppose that there's no problem of having an unused eth1...?
Ciao!
Ilario
[1] https://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/ubiquiti/airmaxm
_______________________________________________
lime-users mailing list
lime-users(a)lists.libremesh.org
https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-users
--
./p4u
_______________________________________________
lime-users mailing list
lime-users(a)lists.libremesh.org
https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-users
12:29 p.m.
New subject: [lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and nanostation M2 update)
wlan1?
Waht?
I suggest to reflash with the "bullet" image (if your device is XM)
without keeping old configuration (-n option of sysupgrade or the check
in the web interface) and retry with Pau's instructions which basically is:
add
config net wan_network
option linux_name 'eth0'
list protocols 'wan'
to /etc/config/lime
issue lime-config
reboot
Then it should automagically work.
For connecting to the device now will be easier via wireless or via
ethernet with IPv6 link-local (via ethernet now there's a DHCP client,
not server).
Let us know :)
Ilario
On 03/29/2017 02:13 PM, James Lewis wrote:
Pau,
Thanks for the info.
It appears that you can do this through the UI. I tried adding the
lines as per the doc to /etc/config/lime, then ran lime-config but it
didn't seem to make any difference - eth1 was still shown as being in
wan.
I then made the change through the UI - added eth0 to wan instead of
eth1, and it then got DHCP ok.
But, no devices connecting to the mesh networking could route out
through that connection (their gateways were set correctly to
10.13.0.1, all mesh devices were talking to each other, and the mesh
device with the gateway could connect to internet devices fine)
So, I tried adding manual NAT settings [1], and this made everything work!
Is that the correct way to set up the gateway device, or is there a
setting somewhere in the libremesh firmware that should have taken
care of this for me?
Thanks again
James
[1] (obviously with interface names changed)
iptables -A FORWARD -i wlan1 -o wlan0 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A FORWARD -i wlan0 -o wlan1 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED \
-j ACCEPT
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o wlan0 -j MASQUERADE
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Pau <pau(a)dabax.net> wrote:
> On 28/03/17 18:54, Ilario Gelmetti wrote:
>> On 03/28/2017 06:41 PM, James Lewis wrote:
>>>>> On 28/03/17 16:13, James Lewis wrote:
>>>>>> Now the quesiton is: how do we set one of the mesh devices to
_take_
>>>>>> DHCP through the LAN port rather than give it, and to be the
'gateway'
>>>>>> device on the mesh network, and then what will happen with
devices
>>>>>> that subsequently connect to the mesh? How will they get their
gateway
>>>>>> set?
>>>>
>>>> There are two ways in your case:
>>>> * configuring LibreMesh for using that ethernet port as WAN (as Pau is
>>>> going to write in the web);
>>>
>>> Great, this is what we thought and tried, but perhaps got something wrong
>>> somewhere as it didn't work. Look forward to Pau's docs.
>
> Let's see if it helps you understand how it works.
>
> http://libremesh.org/docs/changing_network_behavior.html
>
> Feel free to make comments and/or send modifications via pull-request.
>
> We are working on the LiMe Web interface and soon this kind of
> configuration will be available via Web, but for the moment it is only
> possible via shell.
>
>> Did you modify just the /etc/config/lime* files or also the others?
>> I have no idea if this can be done also via the web-ui (I don't think so).
>>
>>>> * otherwise just plugging the cable from the gateway device into the
>>>> secondary port of Nanostation M2 (your model has 2 ethernet ports,
>>>> right?)
>>>
>>> No, I have the little M2 which only has one ethernet port.
>>
>> Ah ok! So it's a Ubiquiti NanoStation M2 LoCo
>>
>>> I do have eth0 and eth1 interfaces though
>>
>> For the LoCo XM model (as well for other models with just 1 ethernet
>> port) the "bullet" image should be used [1]. For XW hardware with one
>> ethernet port (also stuff like newest AirGrid models) there's a
>> "loco-m-xw" image.
>> If you see two ethernet could be because you used the "nano" image.
>> I suppose that there's no problem of having an unused eth1...?
>> Ciao!
>> Ilario
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/ubiquiti/airmaxm
>
> I think the eth1 controller exist but the physical port is just not
> attached.
4:04 p.m.
New subject: [lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and nanostation M2 update)
On 29/03/17 14:29, Ilario Gelmetti wrote:
--
./p4u
wlan1?
Waht?
I suggest to reflash with the "bullet" image (if your device is XM)
without keeping old configuration (-n option of sysupgrade or the check
in the web interface) and retry with Pau's instructions which basically is:
add
config net wan_network
option linux_name 'eth0'
list protocols 'wan'
to /etc/config/lime
issue lime-config
reboot
Then it should automagically work.
For connecting to the device now will be easier via wireless or via
ethernet with IPv6 link-local (via ethernet now there's a DHCP client,
not server).
Let us know :)
Ilario
On 03/29/2017 02:13 PM, James Lewis wrote:
> Pau,
>
> Thanks for the info.
>
> It appears that you can do this through the UI. I tried adding the
> lines as per the doc to /etc/config/lime, then ran lime-config but it
> didn't seem to make any difference - eth1 was still shown as being in
> wan.
>
> I then made the change through the UI - added eth0 to wan instead of
> eth1, and it then got DHCP ok.
>
> But, no devices connecting to the mesh networking could route out
> through that connection (their gateways were set correctly to
> 10.13.0.1, all mesh devices were talking to each other, and the mesh
> device with the gateway could connect to internet devices fine)
>
> So, I tried adding manual NAT settings [1], and this made everything work!
>
> Is that the correct way to set up the gateway device, or is there a
> setting somewhere in the libremesh firmware that should have taken
> care of this for me?
If the virtual network device is named "wan", there is a daemon named
"watchping" which will detect the Internet connection, will publish it
and set up the proper NAT rules.
This is the recommended way, but if you do it manually configuring
network from OpenWRT (instead of using lime-config) then you must be
sure that you are using "wan" as interface name and not something like
"wwan" or "wan2".
Thanks again
James
[1] (obviously with interface names changed)
iptables -A FORWARD -i wlan1 -o wlan0 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A FORWARD -i wlan0 -o wlan1 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED \
-j ACCEPT
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o wlan0 -j MASQUERADE
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Pau <pau(a)dabax.net> wrote:
> On 28/03/17 18:54, Ilario Gelmetti wrote:
>> On 03/28/2017 06:41 PM, James Lewis wrote:
>>>>> On 28/03/17 16:13, James Lewis wrote:
>>>>>> Now the quesiton is: how do we set one of the mesh devices to
_take_
>>>>>> DHCP through the LAN port rather than give it, and to be the
'gateway'
>>>>>> device on the mesh network, and then what will happen with
devices
>>>>>> that subsequently connect to the mesh? How will they get their
gateway
>>>>>> set?
>>>>
>>>> There are two ways in your case:
>>>> * configuring LibreMesh for using that ethernet port as WAN (as Pau is
>>>> going to write in the web);
>>>
>>> Great, this is what we thought and tried, but perhaps got something wrong
>>> somewhere as it didn't work. Look forward to Pau's docs.
>
> Let's see if it helps you understand how it works.
>
> http://libremesh.org/docs/changing_network_behavior.html
>
> Feel free to make comments and/or send modifications via pull-request.
>
> We are working on the LiMe Web interface and soon this kind of
> configuration will be available via Web, but for the moment it is only
> possible via shell.
>
>> Did you modify just the /etc/config/lime* files or also the others?
>> I have no idea if this can be done also via the web-ui (I don't think so).
>>
>>>> * otherwise just plugging the cable from the gateway device into the
>>>> secondary port of Nanostation M2 (your model has 2 ethernet ports,
>>>> right?)
>>>
>>> No, I have the little M2 which only has one ethernet port.
>>
>> Ah ok! So it's a Ubiquiti NanoStation M2 LoCo
>>
>>> I do have eth0 and eth1 interfaces though
>>
>> For the LoCo XM model (as well for other models with just 1 ethernet
>> port) the "bullet" image should be used [1]. For XW hardware with one
>> ethernet port (also stuff like newest AirGrid models) there's a
>> "loco-m-xw" image.
>> If you see two ethernet could be because you used the "nano" image.
>> I suppose that there's no problem of having an unused eth1...?
>> Ciao!
>> Ilario
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/ubiquiti/airmaxm
>
> I think the eth1 controller exist but the physical port is just not
> attached.
_______________________________________________
lime-users mailing list
lime-users(a)lists.libremesh.org
https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-users
4:13 p.m.
New subject: [lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and nanostation M2 update)
If the virtual network device is named
"wan", there is a daemon named
"watchping" which will detect the Internet connection, will publish it
and set up the proper NAT rules.
My interface was definitely called wan, but this definitely didn't
happen until I manually added the iptables rules
Anything else to test? Does this daemon need restart or something if
interface setup changes?
Thanks
J
This is the recommended way, but if you do it manually
configuring
network from OpenWRT (instead of using lime-config) then you must be
sure that you are using "wan" as interface name and not something like
"wwan" or "wan2".
--
./p4u
_______________________________________________
lime-users mailing list
lime-users(a)lists.libremesh.org
https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-users
--
-- lewis.james(a)gmail.com
Thanks
again
James
[1] (obviously with interface names changed)
iptables -A FORWARD -i wlan1 -o wlan0 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A FORWARD -i wlan0 -o wlan1 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED \
-j ACCEPT
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o wlan0 -j MASQUERADE
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Pau <pau(a)dabax.net> wrote:
> On 28/03/17 18:54, Ilario Gelmetti wrote:
>> On 03/28/2017 06:41 PM, James Lewis wrote:
>>>>> On 28/03/17 16:13, James Lewis wrote:
>>>>>> Now the quesiton is: how do we set one of the mesh devices to
_take_
>>>>>> DHCP through the LAN port rather than give it, and to be the
'gateway'
>>>>>> device on the mesh network, and then what will happen with
devices
>>>>>> that subsequently connect to the mesh? How will they get their
gateway
>>>>>> set?
>>>>
>>>> There are two ways in your case:
>>>> * configuring LibreMesh for using that ethernet port as WAN (as Pau is
>>>> going to write in the web);
>>>
>>> Great, this is what we thought and tried, but perhaps got something wrong
>>> somewhere as it didn't work. Look forward to Pau's docs.
>
> Let's see if it helps you understand how it works.
>
> http://libremesh.org/docs/changing_network_behavior.html
>
> Feel free to make comments and/or send modifications via pull-request.
>
> We are working on the LiMe Web interface and soon this kind of
> configuration will be available via Web, but for the moment it is only
> possible via shell.
>
>> Did you modify just the /etc/config/lime* files or also the others?
>> I have no idea if this can be done also via the web-ui (I don't think so).
>>
>>>> * otherwise just plugging the cable from the gateway device into the
>>>> secondary port of Nanostation M2 (your model has 2 ethernet ports,
>>>> right?)
>>>
>>> No, I have the little M2 which only has one ethernet port.
>>
>> Ah ok! So it's a Ubiquiti NanoStation M2 LoCo
>>
>>> I do have eth0 and eth1 interfaces though
>>
>> For the LoCo XM model (as well for other models with just 1 ethernet
>> port) the "bullet" image should be used [1]. For XW hardware with one
>> ethernet port (also stuff like newest AirGrid models) there's a
>> "loco-m-xw" image.
>> If you see two ethernet could be because you used the "nano" image.
>> I suppose that there's no problem of having an unused eth1...?
>> Ciao!
>> Ilario
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/ubiquiti/airmaxm
>
> I think the eth1 controller exist but the physical port is just not
> attached.
_______________________________________________
lime-users mailing list
lime-users(a)lists.libremesh.org
https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-users
4:17 p.m.
New subject: [lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and nanostation M2 update)
If the name is wan watchping should make the work.
You can check the system log with "logread | grep watchping". You can
see if the daemon is running "ps | grep watchping". And you can restart
it manually "/etc/init.d/watchping restart". If the node has Internet
and watchping detects it, a new "tunIn" rule named inet4 is added to
bmx6 in order to publish the Internet to other nodes (you can check it
with bmx6 -cp).
On 29/03/17 18:13, James Lewis wrote:
--
./p4u
If the virtual
network device is named "wan", there is a daemon named
"watchping" which will detect the Internet connection, will publish it
and set up the proper NAT rules.
My interface was definitely called wan, but this definitely didn't
happen until I manually added the iptables rules
Anything else to test? Does this daemon need restart or something if
interface setup changes?
Thanks
J
This is the recommended way, but if you do it
manually configuring
network from OpenWRT (instead of using lime-config) then you must be
sure that you are using "wan" as interface name and not something like
"wwan" or "wan2".
--
./p4u
_______________________________________________
lime-users mailing list
lime-users(a)lists.libremesh.org
https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-users
Thanks
again
James
[1] (obviously with interface names changed)
iptables -A FORWARD -i wlan1 -o wlan0 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A FORWARD -i wlan0 -o wlan1 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED \
-j ACCEPT
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o wlan0 -j MASQUERADE
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Pau <pau(a)dabax.net> wrote:
> On 28/03/17 18:54, Ilario Gelmetti wrote:
>> On 03/28/2017 06:41 PM, James Lewis wrote:
>>>>> On 28/03/17 16:13, James Lewis wrote:
>>>>>> Now the quesiton is: how do we set one of the mesh devices to
_take_
>>>>>> DHCP through the LAN port rather than give it, and to be the
'gateway'
>>>>>> device on the mesh network, and then what will happen with
devices
>>>>>> that subsequently connect to the mesh? How will they get their
gateway
>>>>>> set?
>>>>
>>>> There are two ways in your case:
>>>> * configuring LibreMesh for using that ethernet port as WAN (as Pau is
>>>> going to write in the web);
>>>
>>> Great, this is what we thought and tried, but perhaps got something wrong
>>> somewhere as it didn't work. Look forward to Pau's docs.
>
> Let's see if it helps you understand how it works.
>
> http://libremesh.org/docs/changing_network_behavior.html
>
> Feel free to make comments and/or send modifications via pull-request.
>
> We are working on the LiMe Web interface and soon this kind of
> configuration will be available via Web, but for the moment it is only
> possible via shell.
>
>> Did you modify just the /etc/config/lime* files or also the others?
>> I have no idea if this can be done also via the web-ui (I don't think so).
>>
>>>> * otherwise just plugging the cable from the gateway device into the
>>>> secondary port of Nanostation M2 (your model has 2 ethernet ports,
>>>> right?)
>>>
>>> No, I have the little M2 which only has one ethernet port.
>>
>> Ah ok! So it's a Ubiquiti NanoStation M2 LoCo
>>
>>> I do have eth0 and eth1 interfaces though
>>
>> For the LoCo XM model (as well for other models with just 1 ethernet
>> port) the "bullet" image should be used [1]. For XW hardware with one
>> ethernet port (also stuff like newest AirGrid models) there's a
>> "loco-m-xw" image.
>> If you see two ethernet could be because you used the "nano" image.
>> I suppose that there's no problem of having an unused eth1...?
>> Ciao!
>> Ilario
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/ubiquiti/airmaxm
>
> I think the eth1 controller exist but the physical port is just not
> attached.
_______________________________________________
lime-users mailing list
lime-users(a)lists.libremesh.org
https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-users
9 May
9 May
9:42 p.m.
New subject: [lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and nanostation M2 update)
Hi all
Sorry to resurrect and slightly hijack an old thread but I was wondering how I could get a
multi port router [TL WR 1043 ND] to use all 5 ports [1 wan + 4 lan] as if they were all
wan ports, with both wan and mesh functionality on each and every one of them. In other
words, I’d like to entirely disable the lan interface on ethernet [leaving it only on
wifi] and instead assign the 4 lan ports to perform exactly the same function as the wan
port out-of-the-box.
I need to use one cable that goes to ISP router and have 4 more ports available to mesh
via ethernet with other routers.
I’ve played around with /etc/config/lime, /etc/config/network and luci [just to get my
hands dirty before asking] but I don’t understand the cleanest and most effective way to
do this.
Thank you so much in advance and sorry for all of the questions lately ;]
Nk
On Mar 29, 2017, 6:18 PM +0200, Pau <pau(a)dabax.net>et>, wrote:
If the name is wan watchping should make the work.
You can check the system log with "logread | grep watchping". You can
see if the daemon is running "ps | grep watchping". And you can restart
it manually "/etc/init.d/watchping restart". If the node has Internet
and watchping detects it, a new "tunIn" rule named inet4 is added to
bmx6 in order to publish the Internet to other nodes (you can check it
with bmx6 -cp).
On 29/03/17 18:13, James Lewis wrote:
--
./p4u
_______________________________________________
lime-users mailing list
lime-users(a)lists.libremesh.org
https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-users
If the
virtual network device is named "wan", there is a daemon named
"watchping" which will detect the Internet connection, will publish it
and set up the proper NAT rules.
My interface was definitely called wan, but this definitely didn't
happen until I manually added the iptables rules
Anything else to test? Does this daemon need restart or something if
interface setup changes?
Thanks
J
This is the recommended way, but if you do it
manually configuring
network from OpenWRT (instead of using lime-config) then you must be
sure that you are using "wan" as interface name and not something like
"wwan" or "wan2".
> Thanks again
>
> James
>
> [1] (obviously with interface names changed)
> iptables -A FORWARD -i wlan1 -o wlan0 -j ACCEPT
> iptables -A FORWARD -i wlan0 -o wlan1 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED \
> -j ACCEPT
> iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o wlan0 -j MASQUERADE
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Pau <pau(a)dabax.net> wrote:
> > On 28/03/17 18:54, Ilario Gelmetti wrote:
> > > On 03/28/2017 06:41 PM, James Lewis wrote:
> > > > > > On 28/03/17 16:13, James Lewis wrote:
> > > > > > > Now the quesiton is: how do we set one of the mesh
devices to _take_
> > > > > > > DHCP through the LAN port rather than give it, and to
be the 'gateway'
> > > > > > > device on the mesh network, and then what will happen
with devices
> > > > > > > that subsequently connect to the mesh? How will they
get their gateway
> > > > > > > set?
> > > > >
> > > > > There are two ways in your case:
> > > > > * configuring LibreMesh for using that ethernet port as WAN (as
Pau is
> > > > > going to write in the web);
> > > >
> > > > Great, this is what we thought and tried, but perhaps got something
wrong
> > > > somewhere as it didn't work. Look forward to Pau's docs.
> >
> > Let's see if it helps you understand how it works.
> >
> > http://libremesh.org/docs/changing_network_behavior.html
> >
> > Feel free to make comments and/or send modifications via pull-request.
> >
> > We are working on the LiMe Web interface and soon this kind of
> > configuration will be available via Web, but for the moment it is only
> > possible via shell.
> >
> > > Did you modify just the /etc/config/lime* files or also the others?
> > > I have no idea if this can be done also via the web-ui (I don't think
so).
> > >
> > > > > * otherwise just plugging the cable from the gateway device into
the
> > > > > secondary port of Nanostation M2 (your model has 2 ethernet
ports,
> > > > > right?)
> > > >
> > > > No, I have the little M2 which only has one ethernet port.
> > >
> > > Ah ok! So it's a Ubiquiti NanoStation M2 LoCo
> > >
> > > > I do have eth0 and eth1 interfaces though
> > >
> > > For the LoCo XM model (as well for other models with just 1 ethernet
> > > port) the "bullet" image should be used [1]. For XW hardware
with one
> > > ethernet port (also stuff like newest AirGrid models) there's a
> > > "loco-m-xw" image.
> > > If you see two ethernet could be because you used the "nano"
image.
> > > I suppose that there's no problem of having an unused eth1...?
> > > Ciao!
> > > Ilario
> > >
> > > [1] https://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/ubiquiti/airmaxm
> >
> > I think the eth1 controller exist but the physical port is just not
> > attached.
_______________________________________________
lime-users mailing list
lime-users(a)lists.libremesh.org
https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-users
--
./p4u
_______________________________________________
lime-users mailing list
lime-users(a)lists.libremesh.org
https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-users 
10 May
10 May
2:58 a.m.
New subject: [lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and nanostation M2 update)
On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 23:42 +0200, Nk via lime-users wrote:
Hi all
Sorry to resurrect and slightly hijack an old thread but I was
wondering how I could get a multi port router [TL WR 1043 ND] to use
all 5 ports [1 wan + 4 lan] as if they were all wan ports, with both
wan and mesh functionality on each and every one of them. In other
words, I’d like to entirely disable the lan interface on ethernet
[leaving it only on wifi] and instead assign the 4 lan ports to
perform exactly the same function as the wan port out-of-the-box.
I need to use one cable that goes to ISP router and
have 4 more ports
available to mesh via ethernet with other routers.
this is the default behaviour.
I’ve played around with /etc/config/lime,
/etc/config/network and
luci [just to get my hands dirty before asking] but I don’t
understand the cleanest and most effective way to do this.
Can you share a little bit more of what you accomplished so far?
Thank you so much in advance and sorry for all of the
questions
lately ;]
your questions may be everyone's questions, by you asking everyone
learns! So, don't hesitate asking, do it!! :}
On Mar 29, 2017, 6:18 PM +0200, Pau
<pau(a)dabax.net>et>, wrote:
If the name is wan watchping should make the
work.
You can check the system log with "logread | grep watchping". You
can
see if the daemon is running "ps | grep watchping". And you can
restart
it manually "/etc/init.d/watchping restart". If the node has
Internet
and watchping detects it, a new "tunIn" rule named inet4 is added
to
bmx6 in order to publish the Internet to other nodes (you can check
it
with bmx6 -cp).
On 29/03/17 18:13, James Lewis wrote:
--
./p4u
_______________________________________________
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 If the
virtual network device is named "wan", there is a daemon
named
"watchping" which will detect the Internet connection, will
publish it
and set up the proper NAT rules.
My interface was definitely called wan, but this definitely
didn't
happen until I manually added the iptables rules
Anything else to test? Does this daemon need restart or something
if
interface setup changes?
Thanks
J
This is the recommended way, but if you do it
manually
configuring
network from OpenWRT (instead of using lime-config) then you
must be
sure that you are using "wan" as interface name and not
something like
"wwan" or "wan2".
> > Thanks again
> >
> > James
> >
> > [1] (obviously with interface names changed)
> > iptables -A FORWARD -i wlan1 -o wlan0 -j ACCEPT
> > iptables -A FORWARD -i wlan0 -o wlan1 -m state --state
> > ESTABLISHED,RELATED \
> > -j ACCEPT
> > iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o wlan0 -j MASQUERADE
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Pau <pau(a)dabax.net> wrote:
> > > On 28/03/17 18:54, Ilario Gelmetti wrote:
> > > > On 03/28/2017 06:41 PM, James Lewis wrote:
> > > > > > > On 28/03/17 16:13, James Lewis wrote:
> > > > > > > > Now the quesiton is: how do we set one of the
> > > > > > > > mesh devices to _take_
> > > > > > > > DHCP through the LAN port rather than give it,
> > > > > > > > and to be the 'gateway'
> > > > > > > > device on the mesh network, and then what will
> > > > > > > > happen with devices
> > > > > > > > that subsequently connect to the mesh? How will
> > > > > > > > they get their gateway
> > > > > > > > set?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are two ways in your case:
> > > > > > * configuring LibreMesh for using that ethernet
> > > > > > port as WAN (as Pau is
> > > > > > going to write in the web);
> > > > >
> > > > > Great, this is what we thought and tried, but perhaps
> > > > > got something wrong
> > > > > somewhere as it didn't work. Look forward to Pau's
> > > > > docs.
> > >
> > > Let's see if it helps you understand how it works.
> > >
> > > http://libremesh.org/docs/changing_network_behavior.html
> > >
> > > Feel free to make comments and/or send modifications via
> > > pull-request.
> > >
> > > We are working on the LiMe Web interface and soon this
> > > kind of
> > > configuration will be available via Web, but for the
> > > moment it is only
> > > possible via shell.
> > >
> > > > Did you modify just the /etc/config/lime* files or also
> > > > the others?
> > > > I have no idea if this can be done also via the web-ui
> > > > (I don't think so).
> > > >
> > > > > > * otherwise just plugging the cable from the
> > > > > > gateway device into the
> > > > > > secondary port of Nanostation M2 (your model has 2
> > > > > > ethernet ports,
> > > > > > right?)
> > > > >
> > > > > No, I have the little M2 which only has one ethernet
> > > > > port.
> > > >
> > > > Ah ok! So it's a Ubiquiti NanoStation M2 LoCo
> > > >
> > > > > I do have eth0 and eth1 interfaces though
> > > >
> > > > For the LoCo XM model (as well for other models with
> > > > just 1 ethernet
> > > > port) the "bullet" image should be used [1]. For XW
> > > > hardware with one
> > > > ethernet port (also stuff like newest AirGrid models)
> > > > there's a
> > > > "loco-m-xw" image.
> > > > If you see two ethernet could be because you used the
> > > > "nano" image.
> > > > I suppose that there's no problem of having an unused
> > > > eth1...?
> > > > Ciao!
> > > > Ilario
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/ubiquiti/airmaxm
> > >
> > > I think the eth1 controller exist but the physical port
> > > is just not
> > > attached.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lime-users mailing list
> lime-users(a)lists.libremesh.org
> https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-users
>
--
./p4u
_______________________________________________
lime-users mailing list
lime-users(a)lists.libremesh.org
https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-users
7:36 a.m.
New subject: [lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and nanostation M2 update)
Thank you Nicolas!
I've noticed there's some meshing going on in the lan ports already by default,
but if I chain a lan port of the router to the wan of another one, bmx6 seems to figure
out something is going on on eth1, but BATMAN keeps all routes to other nodes via WiFi,
even to the one that it has an ethernet connection to.
Also, of course, lan ports have the lan interface installed, whereas I'd like to
completely disable it from chef, making the LAN of that router only accessible via WiFi.
In other words, I'd like the exact same config to happen on eth1 as eth0. The reason
is I want to do ethernet mesh with up to 4 other routers without needing an external
switch, connecting to the single wan port, instead using the built in hardware switch in
eth1 that is already part of the router, but with the same behavior of the single wan port
instead as being a Lan.
Basically on the change network behavior webpage p4u wrote [I think] I've learned
that lime-hdw-openwrt-wan is autoinstalled on multiport routers, I've tried
replicating it for Linux_name "eth1" and changing the default interface
"eth0" I've found inside lime-defaults to "eth1" in
/etc/config/lime. But nothing changed at all, even in Network > Interfaces. Also I see
that by default there are eth0_13 and eth0_29 but only one of those two in eth1
[can't remember of 13 or 29]. Is the correct way to copy the lime-hdw-openwrt-wan to
another one named differently and Linux name set to eth1? Chef says not to alter interface
specific configuration inside lime defaults, so where should I do that in chef? Should I
add a new file?
Also, I'm looking for the cleanest possible way to do this, to ensure I don't
mess up all of the extremely complex interface configuration of LiMe ;]
Thank you
Nk
________________________________
From: Nicolas Pace <nico(a)libre.ws>
Sent: May 10, 2017 04:58
To: Nk; libremesh users
Subject: Re: [lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and nanostation M2 update)
On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 23:42 +0200, Nk via lime-users wrote:
Hi all
Sorry to resurrect and slightly hijack an old thread but I was
wondering how I could get a multi port router [TL WR 1043 ND] to use
all 5 ports [1 wan + 4 lan] as if they were all wan ports, with both
wan and mesh functionality on each and every one of them. In other
words, I’d like to entirely disable the lan interface on ethernet
[leaving it only on wifi] and instead assign the 4 lan ports to
perform exactly the same function as the wan port out-of-the-box.
I need to use one cable that goes to ISP router
and have 4 more ports
available to mesh via ethernet with other routers.
this is the default behaviour.
I’ve played around with /etc/config/lime,
/etc/config/network and
luci [just to get my hands dirty before asking] but I don’t
understand the cleanest and most effective way to do this.
Can you share a little bit more of what you accomplished so far?
Thank you so much in advance and sorry for all of
the questions
lately ;]
your questions may be everyone's questions, by you asking everyone
learns! So, don't hesitate asking, do it!! :}
On Mar 29, 2017, 6:18 PM +0200, Pau
<pau(a)dabax.net>et>, wrote:
If the name is wan watchping should make the
work.
You can check the system log with "logread | grep watchping". You
can
see if the daemon is running "ps | grep watchping". And you can
restart
it manually "/etc/init.d/watchping restart". If the node has
Internet
and watchping detects it, a new "tunIn" rule named inet4 is added
to
bmx6 in order to publish the Internet to other nodes (you can check
it
with bmx6 -cp).
On 29/03/17 18:13, James Lewis wrote:
_______________________________________________
lime-users mailing list
lime-users(a)lists.libremesh.org
https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-users
> If the virtual network device is named
"wan", there is a daemon
> named
> "watchping" which will detect the Internet connection, will
> publish it
> and set up the proper NAT rules.
My interface was definitely called wan, but this definitely
didn't
happen until I manually added the iptables rules
Anything else to test? Does this daemon need restart or something
if
interface setup changes?
Thanks
J
> This is the recommended way, but if you do it manually
> configuring
> network from OpenWRT (instead of using lime-config) then you
> must be
> sure that you are using "wan" as interface name and not
> something like
> "wwan" or "wan2".
>
> > > Thanks again
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > [1] (obviously with interface names changed)
> > > iptables -A FORWARD -i wlan1 -o wlan0 -j ACCEPT
> > > iptables -A FORWARD -i wlan0 -o wlan1 -m state --state
> > > ESTABLISHED,RELATED \
> > > -j ACCEPT
> > > iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o wlan0 -j MASQUERADE
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Pau <pau(a)dabax.net> wrote:
> > > > On 28/03/17 18:54, Ilario Gelmetti wrote:
> > > > > On 03/28/2017 06:41 PM, James Lewis wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 28/03/17 16:13, James Lewis wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Now the quesiton is: how do we set one of
the
> > > > > > > > > mesh devices to _take_
> > > > > > > > > DHCP through the LAN port rather than give
it,
> > > > > > > > > and to be the 'gateway'
> > > > > > > > > device on the mesh network, and then what
will
> > > > > > > > > happen with devices
> > > > > > > > > that subsequently connect to the mesh? How
will
> > > > > > > > > they get their gateway
> > > > > > > > > set?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are two ways in your case:
> > > > > > > * configuring LibreMesh for using that ethernet
> > > > > > > port as WAN (as Pau is
> > > > > > > going to write in the web);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Great, this is what we thought and tried, but perhaps
> > > > > > got something wrong
> > > > > > somewhere as it didn't work. Look forward to
Pau's
> > > > > > docs.
> > > >
> > > > Let's see if it helps you understand how it works.
> > > >
> > > > http://libremesh.org/docs/changing_network_behavior.html
> > > >
> > > > Feel free to make comments and/or send modifications via
> > > > pull-request.
> > > >
> > > > We are working on the LiMe Web interface and soon this
> > > > kind of
> > > > configuration will be available via Web, but for the
> > > > moment it is only
> > > > possible via shell.
> > > >
> > > > > Did you modify just the /etc/config/lime* files or also
> > > > > the others?
> > > > > I have no idea if this can be done also via the web-ui
> > > > > (I don't think so).
> > > > >
> > > > > > > * otherwise just plugging the cable from the
> > > > > > > gateway device into the
> > > > > > > secondary port of Nanostation M2 (your model has 2
> > > > > > > ethernet ports,
> > > > > > > right?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, I have the little M2 which only has one ethernet
> > > > > > port.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah ok! So it's a Ubiquiti NanoStation M2 LoCo
> > > > >
> > > > > > I do have eth0 and eth1 interfaces though
> > > > >
> > > > > For the LoCo XM model (as well for other models with
> > > > > just 1 ethernet
> > > > > port) the "bullet" image should be used [1]. For XW
> > > > > hardware with one
> > > > > ethernet port (also stuff like newest AirGrid models)
> > > > > there's a
> > > > > "loco-m-xw" image.
> > > > > If you see two ethernet could be because you used the
> > > > > "nano" image.
> > > > > I suppose that there's no problem of having an unused
> > > > > eth1...?
> > > > > Ciao!
> > > > > Ilario
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/ubiquiti/airmaxm
> > > >
> > > > I think the eth1 controller exist but the physical port
> > > > is just not
> > > > attached.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > lime-users mailing list
> > lime-users(a)lists.libremesh.org
> > https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-users
> >
>
> --
> ./p4u
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lime-users mailing list
> lime-users(a)lists.libremesh.org
> https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-users
--
./p4u
_______________________________________________
lime-users mailing list
lime-users(a)lists.libremesh.org
https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-users
10:48 a.m.
New subject: [lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and nanostation M2 update)
On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 09:36 +0200, nk(a)os.vu wrote:
Thank you Nicolas!
I've noticed there's some meshing going on in the lan ports already
by default, but if I chain a lan port of the router to the wan of
another one, bmx6 seems to figure out something is going on on eth1,
but BATMAN keeps all routes to other nodes via WiFi, even to the one
that it has an ethernet connection to.
Indeed!
The firmware is designed to allow LAN ports to be connected in a daisy-
chain setup, so you can connect as many nodes as you want via the lan
ports, and they will behave as a giant switch.
Also, of course, lan ports have the lan interface
installed, whereas
I'd like to completely disable it from chef, making the LAN of that
router only accessible via WiFi.
In other words, I'd like the exact same config to happen on eth1 as
eth0. The reason is I want to do ethernet mesh with up to 4 other
routers without needing an external switch, connecting to the single
wan port, instead using the built in hardware switch in eth1 that is
already part of the router, but with the same behavior of the single
wan port instead as being a Lan.
Basically on the change network behavior webpage p4u wrote [I think]
I've learned that lime-hdw-openwrt-wan is autoinstalled on multiport
routers, I've tried replicating it for Linux_name "eth1" and changing
the default interface "eth0" I've found inside lime-defaults to
"eth1" in /etc/config/lime. But nothing changed at all, even in
Network > Interfaces. Also I see that by default there are eth0_13
and eth0_29 but only one of those two in eth1 [can't remember of 13
or 29]. Is the correct way to copy the lime-hdw-openwrt-wan to
another one named differently and Linux name set to eth1? Chef says
not to alter interface specific configuration inside lime defaults,
so where should I do that in chef? Should I add a new file?
Also, I'm looking for the cleanest possible way to do this, to ensure
I don't mess up all of the extremely complex interface configuration
of LiMe ;]
This is my second ask for clarification, perhaps I'm too sleepy now to
understand it, but, Could you share with us the use-case for this? I
mean, can you describe what you are trying to accomplish without the
technical language, like if you were describing it to ... a non-geek
friend? :)
At least from my side I need more info :)
Thank you
Nk
From: Nicolas Pace <nico(a)libre.ws>
Sent: May 10, 2017 04:58
To: Nk; libremesh users
Subject: Re: [lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and
nanostation M2 update)
On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 23:42 +0200, Nk via lime-users wrote: > Hi all
connect to the mesh? How will > > > > > > > >
> > > > they get their
gateway > > > > > > > > > > > > set? > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
users(a)lists.libremesh.org > > > > > https://lists.libremesh.org/mailm
an/listinfo/lime-users > > > > > > > > > > > > >
-- > > > > ./p4u >
> Sorry to resurrect and slightly hijack an
old thread but I was >
wondering how I could get a multi port router [TL WR 1043
ND] to use
all 5 ports [1 wan + 4 lan] as if they were all
wan ports, with
both > wan and mesh functionality on each and every one of them.
In
other > words, I’d like to entirely disable the lan interface on
ethernet > [leaving it only on wifi] and instead assign the 4 lan
ports to > perform exactly the same function as the wan port out-of-
the-box. > I need to use one cable that goes to ISP router and have 4
more ports > available to mesh via ethernet with other routers. this
is the default behaviour. > I’ve played around with /etc/config/lime,
/etc/config/network and > luci [just to get my hands dirty before
asking] but I don’t > understand the cleanest and most effective way
to do this. Can you share a little bit more of what you accomplished
so far? > Thank you so much in advance and sorry for all of the
questions > lately ;] your questions may be everyone's questions, by
you asking everyone learns! So, don't hesitate asking, do it!! :} >
On Mar 29, 2017, 6:18 PM +0200, Pau , wrote: > > If the name is wan
watchping should make the work. > > > > You can check the system log
with "logread | grep watchping". You > > can > > see if the daemon
is
running "ps | grep watchping". And you can > > restart > > it
manually "/etc/init.d/watchping restart". If the node has > >
Internet > > and watchping detects it, a new "tunIn" rule named inet4
is added > > to > > bmx6 in order to publish the Internet to other
nodes (you can check > > it > > with bmx6 -cp). > > > > On
29/03/17
18:13, James Lewis wrote: > > > > If the virtual network device is
named "wan", there is a daemon > > > > named > > > >
"watchping"
which will detect the Internet connection, will > > > > publish it >
> > and set up the proper NAT rules. >
> > > > > My interface was
definitely called wan, but this
definitely > > > didn't > > > happen
until I manually added the iptables rules > > > > > > Anything else
to test? Does this daemon need restart or something > > > if > > >
interface setup changes? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > >
> J > > > > > >
This is the recommended way, but if you do it
manually > > > >
configuring > > > > network from OpenWRT
(instead of using lime-
config) then you > > > > must be > > > > sure that you are using
"wan" as interface name and not > > > > something like > >
> > "wwan"
or "wan2". > > > > > > > > > > Thanks again >
> > > > > > > > > > >
James > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] (obviously with
interface names
changed) > > > > > > iptables -A FORWARD -i wlan1 -o wlan0 -j ACCEPT
> > > > > iptables -A FORWARD -i
wlan0 -o wlan1 -m state --state >
> > > > ESTABLISHED,RELATED \ > > > > > > -j ACCEPT >
> > > > >
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o wlan0 -j MASQUERADE >
> > > > > > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 8:08 PM,
Pau wrote: > > > > > > > On
28/03/17 18:54, Ilario Gelmetti
wrote: > > > > > > > > On 03/28/2017
06:41 PM, James Lewis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On
28/03/17 16:13,
James Lewis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Now the
quesiton is: how
do we set one of the > > > > > > > > > > > > mesh
devices to _take_ >
> >
> > > > > > > DHCP through the LAN port rather than give it,
> > > > > > > > > > and to be the 'gateway' >
> > > > > > > > > >
device on the mesh network, and
then what will > > > > > > > > > >
> happen with devices > > > > > > > > > > > > that
subsequently > > > > There are two ways in your
case: > > > > > > > > > > *
configuring LibreMesh for
using that ethernet > > > > > > > > > >
port as WAN (as Pau is > > > > > > > > > > going to write
in the
web); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Great, this is what we
thought and tried, but perhaps > > > > > > > > > got something
wrong
> > > > > > > > somewhere
as it didn't work. Look forward to Pau's
> > > > > > > > docs. > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > Let's see if it
helps you understand how it
works. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http:/
/libremesh.org/docs/changing_network_behavior.html > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > Feel free to make comments
and/or send modifications via >
> > > > > pull-request. > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > We are working
on the LiMe Web interface and soon this >
> > > > > > kind of > > > >
> > configuration will be available via
Web, but for the > > > > >
> moment it is only > > > > > > > possible via shell. > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Did you modify just the /etc/config/lime* files or
also > > > > > > > > the others? > > > > >
> > > I have no idea if
this can be done also via the web-ui > > > > > > > > (I
don't think
so). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> * otherwise just plugging
the cable from the > > > > > > > > > > gateway device into
the > > >
> > > > > > secondary port of
Nanostation M2 (your model has 2 > >
> > > > > > > ethernet ports, > > > > > > >
> > > right?) > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > No, I have the little M2
which only has
one ethernet > > > > > > > > > port. >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Ah ok! So it's a Ubiquiti NanoStation M2
LoCo > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > I do have eth0 and eth1 interfaces though > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > For the LoCo XM model (as well for other models
with > > > > > > > > just 1 ethernet > > > > > >
> > port) the
"bullet" image should be used [1]. For XW > > > > > > >
> hardware
with one > > > > > > > > ethernet port (also stuff like newest
AirGrid models) > > > > > > > > there's a > > >
> > > > > "loco-m-xw"
image. > > > > > > > > If you see two ethernet could be because
you
used the > > > > > > > > "nano" image. > > >
> > > > > I suppose that
there's no problem of having an unused > > > > > > > >
eth1...? > > >
> >
> Ciao! > > > > > > > > Ilario > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
[1]
https://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/ubiquiti/airmaxm > > > > > > > >
> > > > > I think the eth1 controller exist but the physical port >
> > > > > is just not > > > > > > > attached. >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ >
> > > lime-users mailing list > > > > > lime- > > > > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________
> > > lime-users mailing list > > > > lime-
users(a)lists.libremesh.org > > > > https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman
/listinfo/lime-users > > > > > > > > > > > > >
-- > > ./p4u > > >
> >
_______________________________________________ > > lime-users
mailing list
> > lime-users(a)lists.libremesh.org > > https://lists.lib
remesh.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
12:20 p.m.
New subject: [lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and nanostation M2 update)
Hi again!
Sorry, I'm really not an expert at all on these complex configs, sorry if it
wasn't clear.
The goal is to have 5 ports to connect:
1] one ISP router for Internet connection [wan mode]
2] four other mesh nodes via ethernet [mesh mode]
With the existing default setup, if I connect two mesh routers wan to wan, they mesh
perfectly, and both bmx6 and batman show the other router as going via the eth0 interface
instead of the wlan mesh interface.
But I need more ports, so instead of using an outside switch and only use the first
router's wan port [eth0] why not change the behavior of the Lan ports [eth1] and make
all of them wan plus mesh ports? That's the goal here.
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.
Additionally, even if Lan to wan mesh were to work, how would I be certain that all
meshing components would recognize that, and that the second router would not, say, think
of the first router as a traditional [non mesh] router, like an ISP one, and interpret it
as a gateway for instance?
That's why I wanted to make the 4 eth1 ports not output the "Lan"
interface, but the "wan" + "mesh" interfaces, like the single eth0
port.
I'd like to so this from chef, in order to have a ready to deploy image for the first
router with this modification. However I've been doing some tests from luci,
I've disabled the eth1 ports from the Lan interface bridge [leaving the other 3
active], and changing some other stuff but I've tried changing some files but with no
success.
I hope this makes it more clear.
Thank you and sorry for the confusion.
Nk
________________________________
From: Nicolas Pace <nico(a)libre.ws>
Sent: May 10, 2017 12:48
To: libremesh users
Subject: Re: [lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and nanostation M2 update)
On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 09:36 +0200, nk(a)os.vu wrote:
Thank you Nicolas!
I've noticed there's some meshing going on in the lan ports already
by default, but if I chain a lan port of the router to the wan of
another one, bmx6 seems to figure out something is going on on eth1,
but BATMAN keeps all routes to other nodes via WiFi, even to the one
that it has an ethernet connection to.
Indeed!
The firmware is designed to allow LAN ports to be connected in a daisy-
chain setup, so you can connect as many nodes as you want via the lan
ports, and they will behave as a giant switch.
Also, of course, lan ports have the lan interface
installed, whereas
I'd like to completely disable it from chef, making the LAN of that
router only accessible via WiFi.
In other words, I'd like the exact same config to happen on eth1 as
eth0. The reason is I want to do ethernet mesh with up to 4 other
routers without needing an external switch, connecting to the single
wan port, instead using the built in hardware switch in eth1 that is
already part of the router, but with the same behavior of the single
wan port instead as being a Lan.
Basically on the change network behavior webpage p4u wrote [I think]
I've learned that lime-hdw-openwrt-wan is autoinstalled on multiport
routers, I've tried replicating it for Linux_name "eth1" and changing
the default interface "eth0" I've found inside lime-defaults to
"eth1" in /etc/config/lime. But nothing changed at all, even in
Network > Interfaces. Also I see that by default there are eth0_13
and eth0_29 but only one of those two in eth1 [can't remember of 13
or 29]. Is the correct way to copy the lime-hdw-openwrt-wan to
another one named differently and Linux name set to eth1? Chef says
not to alter interface specific configuration inside lime defaults,
so where should I do that in chef? Should I add a new file?
Also, I'm looking for the cleanest possible way to do this, to ensure
I don't mess up all of the extremely complex interface configuration
of LiMe ;]
This is my second ask for clarification, perhaps I'm too sleepy now to
understand it, but, Could you share with us the use-case for this? I
mean, can you describe what you are trying to accomplish without the
technical language, like if you were describing it to ... a non-geek
friend? :)
At least from my side I need more info :)
Thank you
Nk
From: Nicolas Pace <nico(a)libre.ws>
Sent: May 10, 2017 04:58
To: Nk; libremesh users
Subject: Re: [lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and
nanostation M2 update)
On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 23:42 +0200, Nk via lime-users wrote: > Hi all
connect to the mesh? How will > > > > > > > > > >
> > they get their
gateway > > > > > > > > > > > > set? > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
users(a)lists.libremesh.org > > > > >
https://lists.libremesh.org/mailm
an/listinfo/lime-users > > > > > > > > > > > > >
-- > > > > ./p4u >
> Sorry to resurrect and slightly hijack an
old thread but I was >
wondering how I could get a multi port router [TL WR 1043 ND] to use
all 5 ports [1 wan + 4 lan] as if they were all
wan ports, with
both > wan and mesh functionality on each and every one of them. In
other > words, I’d like to entirely disable the lan interface on
ethernet > [leaving it only on wifi] and instead assign the 4 lan
ports to > perform exactly the same function as the wan port out-of-
the-box. > I need to use one cable that goes to ISP router and have 4
more ports > available to mesh via ethernet with other routers. this
is the default behaviour. > I’ve played around with /etc/config/lime,
/etc/config/network and > luci [just to get my hands dirty before
asking] but I don’t > understand the cleanest and most effective way
to do this. Can you share a little bit more of what you accomplished
so far? > Thank you so much in advance and sorry for all of the
questions > lately ;] your questions may be everyone's questions, by
you asking everyone learns! So, don't hesitate asking, do it!! :} >
On Mar 29, 2017, 6:18 PM +0200, Pau , wrote: > > If the name is wan
watchping should make the work. > > > > You can check the system log
with "logread | grep watchping". You > > can > > see if the daemon
is
running "ps | grep watchping". And you can > > restart > > it
manually "/etc/init.d/watchping restart". If the node has > >
Internet > > and watchping detects it, a new "tunIn" rule named inet4
is added > > to > > bmx6 in order to publish the Internet to other
nodes (you can check > > it > > with bmx6 -cp). > > > > On
29/03/17
18:13, James Lewis wrote: > > > > If the virtual network device is
named "wan", there is a daemon > > > > named > > > >
"watchping"
which will detect the Internet connection, will > > > > publish it >
> > and set up the proper NAT rules. >
> > > > > My interface was
definitely called wan, but this definitely > > > didn't > >
> happen
until I manually added the iptables rules > > > > > > Anything else
to test? Does this daemon need restart or something > > > if > > >
interface setup changes? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > >
> J > > > > > >
This is the recommended way, but if you do it
manually > > > >
configuring > > > > network from OpenWRT (instead of using lime-
config) then you > > > > must be > > > > sure that you are
using
"wan" as interface name and not > > > > something like > >
> > "wwan"
or "wan2". > > > > > > > > > > Thanks again >
> > > > > > > > > > >
James > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] (obviously with
interface names
changed) > > > > > > iptables -A FORWARD -i wlan1 -o wlan0 -j ACCEPT
> > > > > iptables -A FORWARD -i
wlan0 -o wlan1 -m state --state >
> > > > ESTABLISHED,RELATED \ > > > > > > -j ACCEPT >
> > > > >
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o wlan0 -j MASQUERADE > > > > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 8:08 PM,
Pau wrote: > > > > > > > On
28/03/17 18:54, Ilario Gelmetti wrote: > > > > > > > > On
03/28/2017
06:41 PM, James Lewis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On
28/03/17 16:13,
James Lewis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Now the
quesiton is: how
do we set one of the > > > > > > > > > > > > mesh
devices to _take_ >
> >
> > > > > > > DHCP through the LAN port rather than give it,
> > > > > > > > > > and to be the 'gateway' >
> > > > > > > > > >
device on the mesh network, and then what will > > > > > > >
> > >
> happen with devices > > > > > > > > > > > > that
subsequently
> > > > There are two ways in your
case: > > > > > > > > > > *
configuring LibreMesh for using that ethernet > > > > > > >
> > >
port as WAN (as Pau is > > > > > > > > > > going to write
in the
web); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Great, this is what we
thought and tried, but perhaps > > > > > > > > > got something
wrong
> > > > > > > > somewhere
as it didn't work. Look forward to Pau's
> > > > > > > > docs. > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > Let's see if it
helps you understand how it works. > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > http:/
/libremesh.org/docs/changing_network_behavior.html > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > Feel free to make comments
and/or send modifications via >
> > > > > pull-request. > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > We are working
on the LiMe Web interface and soon this > > > > > > > kind of
> > > >
> > configuration will be available via
Web, but for the > > > > >
> moment it is only > > > > > > > possible via shell. > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Did you modify just the /etc/config/lime* files or
also > > > > > > > > the others? > > > > >
> > > I have no idea if
this can be done also via the web-ui > > > > > > > > (I
don't think
so). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> * otherwise just plugging
the cable from the > > > > > > > > > > gateway device into
the > > >
> > > > > > secondary port of
Nanostation M2 (your model has 2 > >
> > > > > > > ethernet ports, > > > > > > >
> > > right?) > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > No, I have the little M2
which only has
one ethernet > > > > > > > > > port. > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
Ah ok! So it's a Ubiquiti NanoStation M2
LoCo > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > I do have eth0 and eth1 interfaces though > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > For the LoCo XM model (as well for other models
with > > > > > > > > just 1 ethernet > > > >
> > > > port) the
"bullet" image should be used [1]. For XW > > > > > > >
> hardware
with one > > > > > > > > ethernet port (also stuff like newest
AirGrid models) > > > > > > > > there's a > > >
> > > > > "loco-m-xw"
image. > > > > > > > > If you see two ethernet could be because
you
used the > > > > > > > > "nano" image. > > >
> > > > > I suppose that
there's no problem of having an unused > > > > > > > >
eth1...? > > >
> >
> Ciao! > > > > > > > > Ilario > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
[1] https://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/ubiquiti/airmaxm > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > I think the eth1 controller exist but the physical port >
> > > > > is just not > > > > > > > attached. >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ >
> > > lime-users mailing list > > > > > lime-
> > > > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________
> > > lime-users mailing list > > > > lime-
users(a)lists.libremesh.org > > > >
https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman
/listinfo/lime-users > > > > > > > > > > > > >
-- > > ./p4u > > >
> >
_______________________________________________ > > lime-users
mailing list > > lime-users(a)lists.libremesh.org > >
https://lists.lib
remesh.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
1:25 p.m.
New subject: [lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and nanostation M2 update)
On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 14:20 +0200, Nikksno via lime-users wrote:
Hi again!
Sorry, I'm really not an expert at all on these complex configs,
sorry if it wasn't clear.
Not at all. You were comprenhensive before... I felt it too technical,
that's all (wanted to understand what you were trying to accomplish to
help you besides the specific strategy you choosed).
The goal is to have 5 ports to connect:
1] one ISP router for Internet connection [wan mode]
2] four other mesh nodes via ethernet [mesh mode]
With the existing default setup, if I connect two mesh routers wan to
wan, they mesh perfectly, and both bmx6 and batman show the other
router as going via the eth0 interface instead of the wlan mesh
interface.
But I need more ports, so instead of using an outside switch and only
use the first router's wan port [eth0] why not change the behavior of
the Lan ports [eth1] and make all of them wan plus mesh ports? That's
the goal here.
I didn't expected the wan-to-wan coonection to work!!!
Besides that, the standard way if doing what I feel you want to do is
by connecting then lan-to-lan. That's the default behaviour.
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.
The switch lan (eth1) and two networks that belong to the two radios
should be both part of the same br-lan interface, so they work as a
single 'switch', and bmx6 and batman-adv must see them as peers (I
think bmx6 will show them as originators, and batman-adv as nodes).
Additionally, even if Lan to wan mesh were to work,
how would I be
certain that all meshing components would recognize that, and that
the second router would not, say, think of the first router as a
traditional [non mesh] router, like an ISP one, and interpret it as a
gateway for instance?
You disipate all those doubts by using only the LAN ports. That's the
way to get what you want to do.
That's why I wanted to make the 4 eth1 ports not
output the "Lan"
interface, but the "wan" + "mesh" interfaces, like the single eth0
port.
The general understanding is that WAN means 'to have access to
internet'. The WAN port should only be used for that, and the LAN ports
meaning 'to interconnect nodes or clients' should only be used for
that.
I'd like to so this from chef, in order to have a
ready to deploy
image for the first router with this modification. However I've been
doing some tests from luci, I've disabled the eth1 ports from the Lan
interface bridge [leaving the other 3 active], and changing some
other stuff but I've tried changing some files but with no success.
I would suggest you to try a firmware from scratch and use it as
explained before:
* LAN ports for the interconnection of nodes and clients
* WAN ports for the connnection to Internet.
Let us know if that's clear for you,
Regards,
I hope this makes it more clear.
Thank you and sorry for the confusion.
Nk
From: Nicolas Pace <nico(a)libre.ws>
Sent: May 10, 2017 12:48
To: libremesh users
Subject: Re: [lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and
nanostation M2 update)
On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 09:36 +0200, nk(a)os.vu wrote: > Thank you
Nicolas! > > I've noticed there's some meshing going on in the lan
ports already > by default, but if I chain a lan port of the router
to the wan of > another one, bmx6 seems to figure out something is
going on on eth1, > but BATMAN keeps all routes to other nodes via
WiFi, even to the one > that it has an ethernet connection to.
Indeed! The firmware is designed to allow LAN ports to be connected
in a daisy- chain setup, so you can connect as many nodes as you want
via the lan ports, and they will behave as a giant switch. > Also, of
course, lan ports have the lan interface installed, whereas > I'd
like to completely disable it from chef, making the LAN of that >
router only accessible via WiFi. > > In other words, I'd like the
exact same config to happen on eth1 as > eth0. The reason is I want
to do ethernet mesh with up to 4 other > routers without needing an
external switch, connecting to the single > wan port, instead using
the built in hardware switch in eth1 that is > already part of the
router, but with the same behavior of the single > wan port instead
as being a Lan. > > Basically on the change network behavior webpage
p4u wrote [I think] > I've learned that lime-hdw-openwrt-wan is
autoinstalled on multiport > routers, I've tried replicating it for
Linux_name "eth1" and changing > the default interface "eth0"
I've
found inside lime-defaults to > "eth1" in /etc/config/lime. But
nothing changed at all, even in > Network > Interfaces. Also I see
that by default there are eth0_13 > and eth0_29 but only one of those
two in eth1 [can't remember of 13 > or 29]. Is the correct way to
copy the lime-hdw-openwrt-wan to > another one named differently and
Linux name set to eth1? Chef says > not to alter interface specific
configuration inside lime defaults, > so where should I do that in
chef? Should I add a new file? > > Also, I'm looking for the
cleanest possible way to do this, to ensure > I don't mess up all of
the extremely complex interface configuration > of LiMe ;] This is my
second ask for clarification, perhaps I'm too sleepy now to
understand it, but, Could you share with us the use-case for this? I
mean, can you describe what you are trying to accomplish without the
technical language, like if you were describing it to ... a non-geek
friend? :) At least from my side I need more info :) > > Thank you >
On > 28/03/17 18:54, Ilario Gelmetti wrote: > > > >
> > > > On
03/28/2017 > 06:41 PM, James Lewis wrote: > > > > > > > > >
> > On
28/03/17 16:13, > James Lewis wrote: > > > > > > > > > >
> > Now the
quesiton is: how > do we set one of the > > > > > > > > >
> > > mesh
devices to _take_ > > > > > > > > > > > > > DHCP
through the LAN port
rather than give it, > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
to be the
'gateway' > > > > > > > > > > > > >
device on the mesh network, and
then what will > > > > > > > > > > > > > happen
with devices > > > >
Nk > From: Nicolas Pace > Sent: May 10,
2017 04:58 > To: Nk;
libremesh users > Subject: Re: [lime-users] setting one
mesh device
as gateway? (and > nanostation M2 update) > > On Tue, 2017-05-09 at
23:42 +0200, Nk via lime-users wrote: > Hi all > > > Sorry to
resurrect and slightly hijack an old thread but I was > > wondering
how I could get a multi port router [TL WR 1043 ND] to use > > all 5
ports [1 wan + 4 lan] as if they were all wan ports, with > both >
wan and mesh functionality on each and every one of them. In > other
words, I’d like to entirely disable the lan
interface on > ethernet
[leaving it only on wifi] and instead assign the 4 lan > ports to >
perform
exactly the same function as the wan port out-of- > the-box.
I need to use one cable that goes to ISP router
and have 4 > more
ports > available to mesh via ethernet with other routers.
this > is
the default behaviour. > I’ve played around with /etc/config/lime, >
/etc/config/network and > luci [just to get my hands dirty before >
asking] but I don’t > understand the cleanest and most effective way
to do this. Can you share a little bit more of
what you
accomplished > so far? > Thank you so much in advance and sorry for
all of the > questions > lately ;] your questions may be everyone's
questions, by > you asking everyone learns! So, don't hesitate
asking, do it!! :} > > On Mar 29, 2017, 6:18 PM +0200, Pau , wrote: >
If the name is wan > watchping should make the
work. > > > > You
can check the system log > with "logread |
grep watchping". You > >
can > > see if the daemon is > running "ps | grep watchping". And you
can > > restart > > it > manually "/etc/init.d/watchping
restart". If
the node has > > > Internet > > and watchping detects it, a new
"tunIn" rule named inet4 > is added > > to > > bmx6 in order to
publish the Internet to other > nodes (you can check > > it > > with
bmx6 -cp). > > > > On 29/03/17 > 18:13, James Lewis wrote: > > >
> If
the virtual network device is > named "wan", there is a daemon > >
>
named > > > > "watchping"
> which will detect the Internet
connection, will > > > > publish it
> > > > > and set up the proper
NAT rules. > > > > > > My interface was > definitely called wan,
but this definitely > > > didn't > > > happen > until I
manually
added the iptables rules > > > > > > Anything else > to test? Does
this daemon need restart or something > > > if > > > > interface
setup changes? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > J >
> > > > > > > This
is the recommended way, but if you do it manually > > > > >
configuring > > > > network from OpenWRT (instead of using lime- >
config) then you > > > > must be > > > > sure that you are using
>
"wan" as interface name and not > > > > something like > >
> > "wwan"
or "wan2". > > > > >
> > > > > Thanks again > > > > > > > > > >
> >
James > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] (obviously with
interface names >
changed) > > > > > > iptables -A FORWARD -i
wlan1 -o wlan0 -j ACCEPT
> >
> > > iptables -A FORWARD -i wlan0 -o wlan1 -m state --state
> > > > > ESTABLISHED,RELATED \ > > > > > > -j ACCEPT
> > > > > >
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o wlan0 -j MASQUERADE
> > > > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Pau wrote: > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > that
subsequently > connect to the mesh? How will > >
> > > > > > > > > they get their > gateway > > >
> > > > > > > > >
set? > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are two
ways
in your case: > > > > > > > > > > * > configuring
LibreMesh for using
that ethernet > > > > > > > > > > > port as WAN (as Pau
is > > > > >
> > > > going to write in the >
web); > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Great, this is what we > thought and tried, but perhaps > > >
> > > > > got something wrong > > > > > > > > >
> somewhere as it
didn't work. Look forward to Pau's > > >
> > > > > > > docs. > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
Let's see if it > helps you understand how it
works. > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > http:/ >
/libremesh.org/docs/changing_network_behavior.html > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > Feel free to make
comments and/or send modifications via
> > > > > > > pull-request. > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > We are
working > on the LiMe Web interface and
soon this > > > > > > > kind
of > > > > > > > > configuration will be available via Web, but
for
the > > > > > > > > moment it is only > > > > >
> > possible via
shell. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Did you modify just the
/etc/config/lime* files or > also > > > > > > > > the others?
> > > >
> > > I have no idea if > this can be
done also via the web-ui > >
> > > > > (I don't think > so). > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
* otherwise just plugging
> the cable from the > > > > > > > > > >
gateway device into the > > > > > > > > > > > secondary
port of
Nanostation M2 (your model has 2 > > > > > > > > > > >
ethernet
ports, > > > > > > > > > > right?) > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > No, I have the little M2 which only has
> one ethernet > > > >
> > > > port. > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > Ah ok! So it's a
Ubiquiti NanoStation M2 LoCo >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do
have eth0 and eth1 interfaces though > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> For the LoCo XM model (as well for other
models > with > > > > >
> > just 1 ethernet > > > > > > > > port) the >
"bullet" image
should be used [1]. For XW > > > > > >
> > hardware > with one > > >
> > > > ethernet port (also stuff
like newest > AirGrid models) > >
> > > > > there's a > > > > > > > >
"loco-m-xw" > image. > > > > >
> > If you see two ethernet could be because you > used the > > > >
> > > "nano" image. > > > > > > > > I suppose
that > there's no
problem of having an unused > > > > > >
> > eth1...? > > > > > > > >
Ciao! > > > > > > > >
Ilario > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> [1]
https://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/ubiquiti/airmaxm > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > I think the eth1 controller exist
but the physical port > > >
> > > > is just not > > > > > > > attached. > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ >
> > > > lime-users mailing list > > > > > lime- >
users(a)lists.libremesh.org > > > > > https://lists.libremesh.org/mailm
an/listinfo/lime-users > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -- > > > >
./p4u > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ > > > > > lime-users
mailing list > > > > lime- > users(a)lists.libremesh.org > > > >
https:
//lists.libremesh.org/mailman > /listinfo/lime-users > > > > > >
>
> > > > > -- > > ./p4u
> > > > > > >
_______________________________________________
> > lime-users >
mailing list > > lime-users(a)lists.libremesh.org > > https://lists.lib
_______________________________________________ > 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
1:32 p.m.
New subject: [lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and nanostation M2 update)
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?
1:34 p.m.
New subject: [lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and nanostation M2 update)
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?
Thank you.
Nk
On May 10, 2017, 3:33 PM +0200, Ilario Gelmetti <iochesonome(a)gmail.com>om>, 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
1:37 p.m.
New subject: [lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and nanostation M2 update)
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(a)gmail.co
m>, wrote:
On 05/10/2017 02:20 PM, Nikksno via lime-users
wrote:
_______________________________________________
lime-users mailing list
lime-users(a)lists.libremesh.org
https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-users 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
1:50 p.m.
New subject: [lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and nanostation M2 update)
Ok sorry so just to confirm, the options then are 1] WAN to WAN and 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? 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.
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(a)gmail.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 
4:31 p.m.
New subject: [lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and nanostation M2 update)
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:
_______________________________________________
lime-users mailing list
lime-users(a)lists.libremesh.org
https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-users 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
4:45 p.m.
New subject: [lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and nanostation M2 update)
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?
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?
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, 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’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€. [I’m simultaneously testing out lime-sdk to see if
we can get an open mesh A60 working, thanks to you ;]
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.
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
5:03 p.m.
New subject: [lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and nanostation M2 update)
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
5:05 p.m.
New subject: [lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and nanostation M2 update)
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
8:22 p.m.
New subject: [lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and nanostation M2 update)
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 
11 May
11 May
8:53 p.m.
New subject: [lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and nanostation M2 update)
On 10/05/17 19:05, 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.
i don't think i can help more than what i commented in the
"802.11s config" thread :(
i'd say you could ask in LEDE mailing list, since in any case, it's an
upstream problem (i.e. last time i checked, there was no support for
80211s in how ath10k is bundled in LEDE by default)
FWIW as a reference, this is something i found today, a raw diff of
how i hacked the ath10k-firmware package in the buildroot
to pull the (very specific) kvalo firmware that allows the rawmode
needed for 11s mode
$ git diff package/firmware/ath10k-firmware/Makefile
diff --git a/package/firmware/ath10k-firmware/Makefile
b/package/firmware/ath10k-firmware/Makefile
index b03d644..70db39b 100644
--- a/package/firmware/ath10k-firmware/Makefile
+++ b/package/firmware/ath10k-firmware/Makefile
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ include $(TOPDIR)/rules.mk
PKG_NAME:=ath10k-firmware
PKG_SOURCE_VERSION:=77f72b5f7dd940386d9e619a17904987759b7186
PKG_VERSION:=2014-11-13-$(PKG_SOURCE_VERSION)
-PKG_RELEASE:=1
+PKG_RELEASE:=2-rawmode
PKG_SOURCE_PROTO:=git
PKG_SOURCE:=$(PKG_NAME)-$(PKG_VERSION).tar.xz
@@ -35,12 +35,12 @@ $(Package/ath10k-firmware-default)
TITLE:=ath10k firmware for QCA988x devices
endef
-QCA988X_FIRMWARE_FILE:=firmware-5.bin_10.2.4.97-1
+QCA988X_FIRMWARE_FILE:=firmware-5.bin_10.2.4.70.6-2
define Download/ath10k-firmware-qca988x
-
URL:=https://www.codeaurora.org/cgit/quic/qsdk/oss/firmware/ath10k-firmware…
+ URL:=https://github.com/kvalo/ath10k-firmware/raw/master/QCA988X/hw2.0/10.2…
FILE:=$(QCA988X_FIRMWARE_FILE)
- MD5SUM:=fcb2fbd42d73a63fbf603505c718cbde
+ MD5SUM:=71c11c0d4382201ce8e3456c49f6229f
endef
$(eval $(call Download,ath10k-firmware-qca988x))
2558
days inactive
2602
days old
lime-users@lists.libremesh.org
26 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Gui Iribarren -
Ilario -
Ilario Gelmetti
-
James Lewis -
Nicolas Pace -
Nk -
nk＠os.vu
-
Pau