From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <4D66BBC9.80101@orxrail.com> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:12:57 -0500 From: Vinay Tharigopula MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4D668F3F.4080700@orxrail.com> <20110224194414.GA15337@Sellars> In-Reply-To: <20110224194414.GA15337@Sellars> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] batman-adv mesh slows down wired clients (bridge-loop-avoidance) 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 Linus, Thanks for replying.... I am having trouble finding binaries of batman-adv 2011.0 for OpenWRT . Are they available or do I have to build them myself ? Interfaces: On my router, totally there are 4 interfaces. wlan0 - The infrastructure -type network - with Test1 SSID wlan1- The adhoc network with BSSID "xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx" eth0 - the 4 lan ports. eth1 - the wan port. bat0 has wlan1 added to it. There is a bridge "br-lan" with bat0 eth0 eth1 and wlan0. On the "chosen gateway" router. I have observed this. batctl tg Globally announced HNAs received via the mesh bat0 * 7c:c5:37:6a:ca:cd via 06:24:a5:d8:5d:19 * e2:45:34:51:32:1c via 06:24:a5:d8:5c:16 * 00:24:a5:d8:5c:16 via 06:24:a5:d8:5c:16 * 06:b0:29:d9:45:e5 via 06:24:a5:af:f9:fb * 7c:c5:37:78:3c:6c via 06:24:a5:d8:5d:19 * 00:24:a5:af:f9:fb via 06:24:a5:af:f9:fb * 00:1e:c1:c7:53:c2 via 06:24:a5:af:f9:fb * 00:24:a5:d8:5d:19 via 06:24:a5:d8:5d:19 * 92:b3:f4:d5:c6:f1 via 06:24:a5:d8:5d:19 Note: This is from a group of 4 routers with 2 plugged in via wire. batctl tl. It is announcing around 60 hosts and constantly increasing , pretty much all the hosts connected to the switch that it is plugged into. ! -Vinay On 2/24/2011 2:44 PM, Linus Lüssing wrote: > Hi Vinay, > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 12:02:55PM -0500, Vinay Tharigopula wrote: >> Hello.. >> >> I succesfully configured a batman-adv mesh to add access points to >> our existing wired lan. I am using Openwrt 10.04 and batman-adv >> 2010.1.0. DHCP and everything works as expected. Any wired or >> wireless client connecting to the network gets an IP from a DHCP >> server hooked into the switch etc etc. > The bridge-loop-avoidance feature has been added in 2011.0.0 and > is not available in 2010.1.0. > > If switching to 2011.0.0 helps, don't read any further :). > > > Could you explain a little more which interfaces you've added to > batman-adv and which interfaces you are bridging with bat0? > (ifconfig, brctl show, batctl if output from one router would be > helpful) > >> Our Network configuration: >> >> 8 batman-adv routers with a wireless mesh with two or more of the >> routers having a wired connection directly to the switch. In this >> case, the 8 routers decide to pick one of the "plugged in" routers >> as a gateway to avoid bridge loops. This is fine. >> >> I have been running into issues with wired clients however. >> >> When a wired client plugged into the switch tries to contact a wired >> client plugged into the same switch, the packets manage to get lost. >> I believe they are are going through the wireless routers plugged >> into the same switch. >> >> Instead of going like this.. >> >> PC 1 ----> switch1 ---> PC 2 >> >> they seem to be going like this... (my guess). >> >> PC 1 ---> switch1 ---> wireless router 1 ----(wireless mesh >> link)----> wireless router 2 ----> switch1 ---> PC 2. > Could you please verify with "batctl td" (or tcpdump/wireshark) if > the packets are leaving on the wireless router 1's wifi interface? > >> I think this is because the translation tables on the bat node are >> announcing that even the wired clients are connected to them. > Could you check with batctl tl and batctl tg if these tables are changing > rapidly? If you do not have any client roaming, then these tables are > expected to stay rather static. > >> This is causing extreme delays even in wired clients. Any help will >> be appreciated. Should I enable STP in on the switch ports ? > It does not sound like having disabled STP is your problem. > >> - Vinay >> > Cheers, Linus