From: Predrag Balorda <predrag.balorda@gmail.com>
To: 'The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking'
<b.a.t.m.a.n@open-mesh.net>
Subject: RE: AW: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] 0.3-beta-rv779 and rv780
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 02:05:52 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <000301c820da$5c489880$14d9c980$@com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200711061057.26215.axel@open-mesh.net>
My sincere apologies!
I have gone through the whole setup once again today and now gate0 stays up
and running on all client nodes, it was my iptables setup on middle client
node that was forwarding nat-ted traffic onto ath1 instead of gate0. Sorry
again. Now everything seems stable and nice. I am getting between
600-800KB/s TCP from gateway with 3 nodes which, I presume, is a nice
figure, unless -exp offers something more?
I have gone by the advice and put all radios onto the same subnet. Now
traceroute from one node onto another takes ages to do (with single-radio
setup it was nice and showed me exactly what I was expecting) - I guess it
has something to do with two interfaces with the same mask etc etc? Also
doesn't this set-up hurt performance if the linux kernel sends packets with
the same broadcast address down the first interface it finds, even though
that interface might be the radio with worse connectivity than the second
one? How should we handle this?
Pele
P.S. who do I complain to about vis not showing ALL my interfaces
(dual-radio units) as distinct IP addresses and their connections to others
but instead just takes the first interface on the subnet so instead of
having 6 nodes on my diagram I only have 3 and each one has a host-hna
attached to it (I'd rather not burden this list with mime attachments)?
-----Original Message-----
From: b.a.t.m.a.n-bounces@open-mesh.net
[mailto:b.a.t.m.a.n-bounces@open-mesh.net] On Behalf Of Axel Neumann
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 10:57 AM
To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking
Subject: Re: AW: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] 0.3-beta-rv779 and rv780
On Dienstag 06 November 2007, Marek Lindner wrote:
> > The non-usual setup: you have different parts of your mesh operating in
> >
> > different subnets you need an additional ip rule to make the nodes in
>
> the
>
> > non-homed subnet reachable from a node which has no interface in that
>
> subnet.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-11-07 1:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-06 8:24 AW: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] 0.3-beta-rv779 and rv780 Marek Lindner
2007-11-06 9:57 ` Axel Neumann
2007-11-07 1:05 ` Predrag Balorda [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-11-06 8:26 Marek Lindner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='000301c820da$5c489880$14d9c980$@com' \
--to=predrag.balorda@gmail.com \
--cc=b.a.t.m.a.n@open-mesh.net \
--cc=pele@balorda.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox