Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Batman advanced and internet gateways

[Clemens John <clemens-john@gmx.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 2267 bytes --]

Am Mittwoch 07 Juli 2010, 00:30:30 schrieb Marek Lindner:
> On Wednesday, July 07, 2010 00:21:38 Clemens John wrote:
> > I still got two question left that I remembered when I read your answers:
> > We discussed our networksetup on IRC (you remember?) and we decided to
> > choose the setup with tinc an not sending batman advanced packages over
> > VPN.
> 
> Oh yeah, I remember. Did you document your setup somewhere ? Others might
> find it useful to see why & how you did it.

Yes we did some verry little documentation [1] but this is still the pure 
configuraion without explenations  because we are currently testing some 
different configurations for example some IPv6 stuff and a script which can 
automatically announce tinc installations with configuration and certificates on 
a central server for automatic tinc installations etc..

I hope this will get better in the next time.

[1] http://wiki.freifunk-
ol.de/index.php?title=OpenWrt_Freifunk_Standartkonfiguration

> > Now batman advanced nodes behind the VPN does not get listet in the
> > originator tables of nodes on the other side of the VPN.
> > But do they get listed on the gateway list? Can Batman advanced choose a
> > gateway behind the VPN?
> 
> No, because the gateway information travel with the OGMs which you don't
> have on your VPN. Sending dhcp requests via unicast also does not work
> because the VPN interfaces are not controlled by batman.

Mhh...
The only way to solve this would be to send whole batman advanced frames over 
Tinc VPN right (we called this solution 3 in the irc session)?

Would this be possible? I know that we than have the MTU problem again and 
higher traffic load (what would not be so fatal because we have no cetral server 
with tinc).

Our current setup makes not much sense if we use Batman advanced with gateway 
mode because we do not have a gateway in each cloud and it would be difficult to 
get one to each cloud.
The best way would be a solution that can use all gateways available in the 
network without extra configuration for each cloud.

Can you give me a short example of how to fix the mtu problem with this method? 
Offcourse we are going to document both solutions ;)

Thank you
Clemens

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]