[lime-users] setting one mesh device as gateway? (and nanostation M2 update)

Nk nk at os.vu
Wed May 10 16:45:07 UTC 2017


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 at libre.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 at libre.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 at 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 at lists.libremesh.org
> > > > > https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-users
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > lime-users mailing list
> > > > lime-users at lists.libremesh.org
> > > > https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-users
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > lime-users mailing list
> > lime-users at lists.libremesh.org
> > https://lists.libremesh.org/mailman/listinfo/lime-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.libremesh.org/pipermail/lime-users/attachments/20170510/29e4fc88/attachment.html>


More information about the lime-users mailing list