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

Nicolas Pace nico at libre.ws
Wed May 10 20:22:08 UTC 2017


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 at libre.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 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@
> > > > > > > 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
> > >  
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.libremesh.org/pipermail/lime-users/attachments/20170510/57207823/attachment.sig>


More information about the lime-users mailing list