From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Simon Wunderlich Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 23:38:20 +0200 Message-ID: <1463029.4iWUHdE7x7@prime> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Testing example of interface bonding Reply-To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Id: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org Hello Ray, thanks a lot for your mail. On Sunday 10 August 2014 15:00:51 Ray Gibson wrote: > Hello, > > Are there any documented cases (aside from the aging graph on the > wiki) on batman-adv bonding setups? Not as far as I know. The bonding feature does not seem to be the most popular one. :) (If there is anyone, please tell us!) > > I'm testing batman-adv 2014.3.0 in an effort to experiment and test > with multi-link optimizations. There is no wifi in the picture at the > moment, this is being done with tap interfaces right now. > > My two nodes have this network config: > lan0: bridge of eth0 and bat0, 192.168.100.1 on node1, 192.168.100.2 on > node2 bat0: includes tap0 and tap1 active, no IP. > eth1: "wan" link, 10.10.10.1 on node1, 10.10.10.2 on node2 > tap0/1: openvpn bridge links over eth1, no IPs assigned to these interfaces. > > This is a VMware environment for testing. With the above setup, I can > ping/iperf/whatever back and forth on the 192.168.100.x network. It > works great just extending a lan transparently on a wan link. This > was the original idea, with redundant connections (hence the multi tap > interfaces). > > Now, I'm trying to isolate the test down to bonding. However, > enabling bonding in batctl on both nodes has no apparent effect > whatsoever. Watching an iperf session in ifstat, I will see constant > traffic on bat0, and then either tap0 or tap1 depending on how it's > feeling at the time. Sometimes it will shift all the traffic to the > other tap interface. Sometimes the incoming traffic will be on one > interface and the outgoing traffic will be on the other. > > Note: I'm running iperf/etc on the nodes themselves, not on separate > devices on the lan bridge. Hmm. What you should see after enabling bonding would be a similar usage of both interfaces. I guess each tap interfaces of node1 is "directly connected" to the other tap interface of node2, right? Could you please share your outputs of: batctl originators batctl originators -i tap0 batctl originators -i tap1 > > Ultimately I am looking to try bonding several 3G or 4G devices > together with batman-adv to achieve higher throughput to a single > destination. Please note that the bonding will only benefit under some circumstances, as far as my experiments have shown: * since its round robin, you'll only see a benefit if the worst link does not have less than 50% throughput of the best one - otherwise it will slow the other links down. * different latencies or buffering delays in the links may lead to out of order packets, and not every payload traffic likes that. I could see some improvement when having two equal wifi links though. In any case, please thoroughly test it before applying that to your 3g/4g application, there may be some pitfalls. I'd be also very interested in your findings. :) Thanks, Simon