[B.A.T.M.A.N.] Any results from BattleMesh 2009?

[B.A.T.M.A.N.] Any results from BattleMesh 2009?

[Gus Wirth]

I see on the OpenWRT site that there was supposed to be a Wireless 
Battle Mesh a couple weeks ago. Does anyone have some results from the 
event?

Gus

Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Any results from BattleMesh 2009?

[Linus Lüssing]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1628 bytes --]

On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 03:58:29PM -0800, Gus Wirth wrote:
> I see on the OpenWRT site that there was supposed to be a Wireless
> Battle Mesh a couple weeks ago. Does anyone have some results from
> the event?
> 
> Gus

Hi Gus,

yes, there was the 2nd Wireless Battle Mesh a couple of weeks ago
in Brussels and also a bunch of BATMAN fans/devs had been there
:). The results have mostly been of individual tests, every one of
those groups was installing their protocols and daemons on those
tiny Fonera routers and did mostly debugging, testing and
bug-hunting or general layer 1 wifi tests (which turned out to be
the most broken one ;) ). All in all every group was pretty quick
at providing a set of configurations and proving, that their
daemons were running stable on a current OpenWRT trunk version.
The WBMII people are going to submit a more detailed report in
the next couple of weeks.
From the BATMAN side, it was a great chance for a face to face
meeting and we used most of the time for discussions about the
veeery soon to come next stable BATMAN-Adv release and
ideas and plans for the development of the next version (which
will basically be getting ready for and into the linux mainline
kernel and making BATMAN responding to changes faster). We will
also be going to write a little summary of the event and its
results and conclusions for BATMAN, which will be published in the
next couple of days in the open-mesh-wiki. So stay tuned :).

Cheers, Linus

PS: Just out of curiosity and also because the reports are in
progress right now, what kind of results are you expecting?

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Any results from BattleMesh 2009?

[Carcellelist]

Dear Gus,

We are finalizing the report from the WBMv2 and will available in the coming 
days. Hopefully until the end of this week/

Thank you.

Xavier.

On Thursday 05 November 2009 00:58:29 Gus Wirth wrote:
> I see on the OpenWRT site that there was supposed to be a Wireless
> Battle Mesh a couple weeks ago. Does anyone have some results from the
> event?
> 
> Gus
> _______________________________________________
> B.A.T.M.A.N mailing list
> B.A.T.M.A.N@lists.open-mesh.net
> https://lists.open-mesh.net/mm/listinfo/b.a.t.m.a.n
> 

Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Any results from BattleMesh 2009?

[Gus Wirth]

On 11/04/2009 06:49 PM, Linus Lüssing wrote:
[snip]
> PS: Just out of curiosity and also because the reports are in
> progress right now, what kind of results are you expecting?

Things I'm curious about:

How was the mesh configured?

What tools did you use to test the mesh?

How does the mesh react to the addition of a node? How long does it take 
a new node to integrate itself into the mesh?

How does the mesh react to the removal of a node? How long does it take 
the mesh to react to the node removal?

How does the mesh handle interference? Did you have anything to generate 
interference for testing?

What tools were used to visualize the mesh? Any images available?

Results of throughput testing for one hop, two hop, etc.

What was the CPU load on the mesh nodes while relaying traffic? What 
were the nodes?

I'll probably have more questions later.

Gus

Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Any results from BattleMesh 2009?

[Steven Leeman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 384 bytes --]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Gus Wirth <gwirth79@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/04/2009 06:49 PM, Linus Lüssing wrote:
> [snip]
>
>  PS: Just out of curiosity and also because the reports are in
>> progress right now, what kind of results are you expecting?
>>
>
> Things I'm curious about:
>

things you can read allready :
http://hackerspace.be/Wireless_Battle_Mesh_v2

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 885 bytes --]

Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Any results from BattleMesh 2009?

[L. Aaron Kaplan]

(disclaimer: I was not at this WBM but at the previous one - but I  
think some things can be generalized, so I dare to give some answers  
here. Others who were there might want to add )

On Nov 5, 2009, at 6:20 PM, Gus Wirth wrote:

> On 11/04/2009 06:49 PM, Linus Lüssing wrote:
> [snip]
>> PS: Just out of curiosity and also because the reports are in
>> progress right now, what kind of results are you expecting?
>
> Things I'm curious about:
>
> How was the mesh configured?
>
> What tools did you use to test the mesh?
>
> How does the mesh react to the addition of a node? How long does it  
> take a new node to integrate itself into the mesh?

Many of the protocols tested at the WBM tests so far can be tuned to  
different timing parameter. So, in theory you can make them pretty  
"fast" (but you have more communication overhead). There is AFAIK no  
agreed upon standard setting of comparable timing and config parameters.

BATMAN per see seems to have a theoretical limitation that Juliusz  
found out: exponential time for convergence in the presence of loss.  
This result was obtained thru reasoning and logic, not thru tests.

>
> How does the mesh react to the removal of a node? How long does it  
> take the mesh to react to the node removal?
>
see above

> How does the mesh handle interference? Did you have anything to  
> generate interference for testing?
>
interference is a layer 2 issue. Unfortunately at the last WBM in  
Paris, I wish I had a spectrum analyzer to actually compare the  
testbed with the "interference surrounding" it was embedded within.

> What tools were used to visualize the mesh? Any images available?
>

> Results of throughput testing for one hop, two hop, etc.
>
> What was the CPU load on the mesh nodes while relaying traffic? What  
> were the nodes?
>
> I'll probably have more questions later.

In Paris, it was *very* hard to get comparable results at all. However  
it made sense to discuss and improve the respective implementations  
however  :)


a.

Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Any results from BattleMesh 2009?

[Benjamin Henrion]

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:17 AM, L. Aaron Kaplan <aaron@lo-res.org> wrote:
>
> (disclaimer: I was not at this WBM but at the previous one - but I think
> some things can be generalized, so I dare to give some answers here. Others
> who were there might want to add )
>
> On Nov 5, 2009, at 6:20 PM, Gus Wirth wrote:
>
>> On 11/04/2009 06:49 PM, Linus Lüssing wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> PS: Just out of curiosity and also because the reports are in
>>> progress right now, what kind of results are you expecting?
>>
>> Things I'm curious about:
>>
>> How was the mesh configured?
>>
>> What tools did you use to test the mesh?
>>
>> How does the mesh react to the addition of a node? How long does it take a
>> new node to integrate itself into the mesh?
>
> Many of the protocols tested at the WBM tests so far can be tuned to
> different timing parameter. So, in theory you can make them pretty "fast"
> (but you have more communication overhead). There is AFAIK no agreed upon
> standard setting of comparable timing and config parameters.
>
> BATMAN per see seems to have a theoretical limitation that Juliusz found
> out: exponential time for convergence in the presence of loss. This result
> was obtained thru reasoning and logic, not thru tests.
>
>>
>> How does the mesh react to the removal of a node? How long does it take
>> the mesh to react to the node removal?
>>
> see above
>
>> How does the mesh handle interference? Did you have anything to generate
>> interference for testing?
>>
> interference is a layer 2 issue. Unfortunately at the last WBM in Paris, I
> wish I had a spectrum analyzer to actually compare the testbed with the
> "interference surrounding" it was embedded within.

Next Battle Mesh should be organised in a 2.4Ghz-free zone (ie a
remote area with no wifi in the surroundings).

And I also think the foneras are not the right platforms to use, since
they only ouput 1.5Mo/sec in ad-hoc mode in static routing
configuration.

--
Benjamin Henrion <bhenrion at ffii.org>
FFII Brussels - +32-484-566109 - +32-2-4148403
"In July 2005, after several failed attempts to legalise software
patents in Europe, the patent establishment changed its strategy.
Instead of explicitly seeking to sanction the patentability of
software, they are now seeking to create a central European patent
court, which would establish and enforce patentability rules in their
favor, without any possibility of correction by competing courts or
democratically elected legislators."

Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Any results from BattleMesh 2009?

[L. Aaron Kaplan]

>>
>
> Next Battle Mesh should be organised in a 2.4Ghz-free zone (ie a
> remote area with no wifi in the surroundings).
>

:) it is funny that you said that but after Paris we were also thinking
of getting a cave for tests hehe.

We were wondering about reflections there however.

> And I also think the foneras are not the right platforms to use, since
> they only ouput 1.5Mo/sec in ad-hoc mode in static routing
> configuration.

yes! agreed.

Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Any results from BattleMesh 2009?

[Benjamin Henrion]

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 3:48 PM, L. Aaron Kaplan <aaron@lo-res.org> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Next Battle Mesh should be organised in a 2.4Ghz-free zone (ie a
>> remote area with no wifi in the surroundings).
>>
>
> :) it is funny that you said that but after Paris we were also thinking
> of getting a cave for tests hehe.
>
> We were wondering about reflections there however.

Outdoor tests. Indoor tests are non-sense.

The problem with outdoor tests is "permanent power supplies".

>> And I also think the foneras are not the right platforms to use, since
>> they only ouput 1.5Mo/sec in ad-hoc mode in static routing
>> configuration.
>
> yes! agreed.

Is it a problem of the ad-hoc driver or of the hardware itself?

--
Benjamin Henrion <bhenrion at ffii.org>
FFII Brussels - +32-484-566109 - +32-2-4148403
"In July 2005, after several failed attempts to legalise software
patents in Europe, the patent establishment changed its strategy.
Instead of explicitly seeking to sanction the patentability of
software, they are now seeking to create a central European patent
court, which would establish and enforce patentability rules in their
favor, without any possibility of correction by competing courts or
democratically elected legislators."

Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Any results from BattleMesh 2009?

[Steven Leeman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1416 bytes --]

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Benjamin Henrion <bh@udev.org> wrote:


> > We were wondering about reflections there however.
> Outdoor tests. Indoor tests are non-sense.
>

Then we should go to Las Vegas or Sahara... where most Wifi records are
broken :-)
at 2.4ghz tests we are also influenced by "water" ... due to rivers, lakes
and that in the air :-)


> The problem with outdoor tests is "permanent power supplies".
>

Didn't you see those nifty batteries powering the foneras? if you run iperf
on your laptop they could run your fonera for 2hours and more !
if you could power it at 3.3V you could even reach 4 hours...
those model 2100 are using 50% of your power just for heating the air
surrounding it...not for the wifi chip...


> >> And I also think the foneras are not the right platforms to use, since
> >> they only ouput 1.5Mo/sec in ad-hoc mode in static routing
> >> configuration.
> >
> > yes! agreed.
>
> Is it a problem of the ad-hoc driver or of the hardware itself?
>

I only know that they can handle 1.9Mo/sec in 'NAT' handling...but that
wasn't the case during these tests iirc?
The wifi speeds were even set at 2mbit fixed during tests outside where more
than 100meter between each hop and still a ping going accross 4 hops

http://picasaweb.google.be/steven.leeman/20091017BattleMesh2#5394013358613926114
http://picasaweb.google.be/steven.leeman/20091017BattleMesh2#5394206278078330914

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2376 bytes --]

Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Any results from BattleMesh 2009?

[L. Aaron Kaplan]

>>
>> yes! agreed.
>
> Is it a problem of the ad-hoc driver or of the hardware itself?

I dont know but I think it is both. Recently thanks to nbd (Felix) the  
driver became very good in my humble opinion. But still the hardware  
(FON) is crappy enough to be very cheap but still good enough for the  
price / performance ratio ;-) (Especially if you get it on discount  
from FON.com for 10 EURs)

Personally I love PC Engines Alix boards. Swiss design. Cool and very  
stable stuff :)

My 2 cents,
a.