AW: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] 0.3-beta-rv779 and rv780

AW: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] 0.3-beta-rv779 and rv780

[Marek Lindner]

> 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. 
> So for example, if your setup looks like:
>      A---------------------B1_B2---------------C
> 10.0.0.1/24       10.0.0.2/24 10.0.1.2/24  10.0.1.3/24   
> 
> the easiest way to do achieve that at A and C is:
> $ ip rule add from all pref 6500 t 66

Wouldn't be HNA the much better solution ? Node B should announce one of 
the networks. To not rebroadcast OGMs from the wrong network batman
should check if the received originator IP is within the own network.



Regards,
Marek




      Jetzt Mails schnell in einem Vorschaufenster überfliegen. Dies und viel mehr bietet das neue Yahoo! Mail - www.yahoo.de/mail

AW: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] 0.3-beta-rv779 and rv780

[Marek Lindner]

Hi,


> For some reason (or another?) my middle unit keeps re-creating the
 gate0
> every few seconds. Sometimes it loses it completely and sometimes it
 keeps
> it for 10 seconds or so. The furthest node from the gw keeps it's
 tunnel
> permanently configured (which is nice).

to get to the bottom of your problem I need debug level 3 output. If
 you start
the daemon with "-d 3" or connect to the running daemon with "batmand
 -c -d 3"
and send me that output I will be able to figure it out.


> Basically, node-to-node traffic is ok, very stable and very nice but
> node-through-gw is flaky.

On all nodes or just from that one ?


Greetings,
Marek






      Heute schon einen Blick in die Zukunft von E-Mails wagen? www.yahoo.de/mail

Re: AW: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] 0.3-beta-rv779 and rv780

[Axel Neumann]

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.
>
> > So for example, if your setup looks like:
> >      A---------------------B1_B2---------------C
> > 10.0.0.1/24       10.0.0.2/24 10.0.1.2/24  10.0.1.3/24
> >
> > the easiest way to do achieve that at A and C is:
> > $ ip rule add from all pref 6500 t 66
>
> Wouldn't be HNA the much better solution ? Node B should announce one of
> the networks. To not rebroadcast OGMs from the wrong network batman
> should check if the received originator IP is within the own network.

I am not sure if I understand you correct. Do you mean that (instead of 
re-broadcasting As OGMs on interface B2) node B should announce 10.0.0.0/24 
as HNA on B2 ?

ciao,
axel

>
>
>
> Regards,
> Marek
>
>
>
>
>       Jetzt Mails schnell in einem Vorschaufenster überfliegen. Dies und
> viel mehr bietet das neue Yahoo! Mail - www.yahoo.de/mail
>
> _______________________________________________
> B.A.T.M.A.N mailing list
> B.A.T.M.A.N@open-mesh.net
> https://list.open-mesh.net/mm/listinfo/b.a.t.m.a.n

RE: AW: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] 0.3-beta-rv779 and rv780

[Predrag Balorda]

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.