[B.A.T.M.A.N.] Multiple gateways and WRT54GL's

[B.A.T.M.A.N.] Multiple gateways and WRT54GL's

[Patrick Beddy]

Please forgive this very "newbie" question, but it is one to which I cannot find an answer on 
this site:

I manage a campus network which runs a fibre backbone between critical points. I wish to 
impliment a wireless mesh to link non-critical points and "fill-the-gaps" so to speak. It is thus 
possible that more than one wireless point could act as a gateway to the main network. I 
understand that the B.A.T.M.A.N. protocol offers the most promising means of achieving this 
objective.

1: Do I have to use the Advanced version of B.A.T.M.A.N. to make this possible, of will the 
"standard" version work?

2: I have purchased a few WRT54GL-EU routers with which to test the implimentation. Are 
there any pre-compiled versions of the binaries available, or do I have to use a PC running 
Linux to compile my own binaries?

Many thanks




==================================================
Please report any abuse sent from any Treverton user to
       abuse@treverton.co.za
==================================================

Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Multiple gateways and WRT54GL's

[Marek Lindner]

Hi,

> I manage a campus network which runs a fibre backbone between critical
>  points. I wish to  impliment a wireless mesh to link non-critical points
>  and "fill-the-gaps" so to speak. It is thus possible that more than one
>  wireless point could act as a gateway to the main network. I understand
>  that the B.A.T.M.A.N. protocol offers the most promising means of
>  achieving this objective.

you can use meshing to build a chain of wireless routers covering a certain 
area. If you only have a single AP at the end of your fibre there is no need to 
mesh.


> 1: Do I have to use the Advanced version of B.A.T.M.A.N. to make this
>  possible, of will the  "standard" version work?
> 
> 2: I have purchased a few WRT54GL-EU routers with which to test the
>  implimentation. Are  there any pre-compiled versions of the binaries
>  available, or do I have to use a PC running Linux to compile my own
>  binaries?

Both implementations can be used to build the mesh but it is a bit hard to 
give advice on which might be more suitable for your setup since we don't have 
much information regarding your requirements. The "standard" batman operates 
on layer 3 whereas advanced operates on layer 2 (each having its advantages & 
disadvantages). 

Note: As batman-adv is a kernel module it heavily depends on the kernel 
version you run on the nodes. A linux not older than 2.6.20 is required. AFAIK 
the WRT54G still depends on the precompiled proprietary wifi driver only 
available for linux 2.4.20. OpenWRT tries to move to the open driver but I 
don't know how well it works.

Regards,
Marek

Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Multiple gateways and WRT54GL's

[Bastian Bittorf]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 442 bytes --]

* Marek Lindner <lindner_marek@yahoo.de> [06.04.2010 07:50]:

> the WRT54G still depends on the precompiled proprietary wifi driver only 
> available for linux 2.4.20. OpenWRT tries to move to the open driver but I 

this is an old rumour since some days, the new kamikaze-release
"backfire" now fully supports the wrt54gl's wifi (b43+mac80211) with
an opensource driver which make's it possible to use kernel 2.6.32+

bye, Bastian

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Multiple gateways and WRT54GL's

[Marek Lindner]

On Tuesday 06 April 2010 16:10:57 Bastian Bittorf wrote:
> this is an old rumour since some days, the new kamikaze-release
> "backfire" now fully supports the wrt54gl's wifi (b43+mac80211) with
> an opensource driver which make's it possible to use kernel 2.6.32+

I read the announcement but does it work (especially the adhoc mode) ? I'd be 
really interested in hearing about first hand experience.

Regards,
Marek

Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Multiple gateways and WRT54GL's

[Bastian Bittorf]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 329 bytes --]

* Marek Lindner <lindner_marek@yahoo.de> [06.04.2010 11:50]:
> 
> I read the announcement but does it work (especially the adhoc mode) ? I'd be 
> really interested in hearing about first hand experience.

without problems, minstrel also does the job.
it is working since a long time, but only in trunk.

bye, Bastian


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]