Hi Javier I can't comment for what is in or out of the standards.
Our biggest deployed mesh had 10 nodes, of which 4 were repeater only nodes. Our kit consists of repeaters and endpoint nodes. Endpoint nodes have the openwrt device connected to either a network video recorder and 4 cameras, or a digital signage device, or a voip node with two sip extension phones. All the nodes, including the repeater nodes, publish an SSID for staff access to all the other devices, and internet access through a gateway node. The way we have it, the nodes all have two IP addresses, one for the "internal" mesh network so the devices can find and talk to each other and exchange routing information, and a "behind" network that contains all the supported devices. We use OLSR to publish and share the behind networks over the mesh. The mesh runs on 5Ghz, and the access network is 2.4Ghz. All our devices are portable, and we can have the mesh up and running in less than 10 minutes. The biggest challenge is finding the best locations for the repeater nodes, and we have a process that runs on the openwrt device that checks the OLSR "goodness" for each link, and then shows that as a colour/brightness/blink rate report on an RGB LED, so we can walk around with the repeater node turned on, looking for the location that gives the best coverage AND connection back to the mesh. Our repeaters have 20dBm omni aerials connected (three per node for N) and we can normally get about 70-150Mbs link rate. Hope this helps. Ross On 1 October 2014 11:24, Javier Cardona <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ross, > > Thanks for the info. May I ask how big a network can you support with > OLSR over 11s? > > Early drafts of the 11s amendment supported OLSR in addition to HWMP. But > support for OLSR was dropped because "there are no additional deployment > scenarios or usage models that RA-OLSR enables beyond those that are > enabled by HWMP" [Source: > https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/07/11-07-2547-02-000s-reconsidering-ra-olsr.ppt > ] > > I'm curious if that was an accurate statement or the proponents of that > motion were just in a hurry to get the standard ratified... :) > > Cheers, > > Javier > > > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Ross Wakelin <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hiya >> >> In our mesh platform that is used to support emergency responders, we use >> an underlying >> 11s layer, leveraging the authentication/encryption capabilities, and >> then use OLSR on top >> to provide the routing and reporting/managing we need. >> Sitting on top of 11n and Openwrt, it just works, and its stable. We use >> it to carry voice, video >> and data across sites. >> >> >> On 1 October 2014 05:42, Pau via Devel <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Find my comments in line. >>> >>> On 30/09/14 17:56, Javier Cardona wrote: >>> > Hi Pau, >>> > >>> > I agree with your assessment: 11s brings a number of benefits over >>> ad-hoc. >>> > In addition to the ones you listed, I would add: >>> > >>> > 6. symmetric security (SAE) >>> >>> In AdHoc it is possible to use WPA2 PSK, however the implementation of >>> SAE in 11s is probably better because of a cleaner integration. >>> >>> > 7. customizable path selection mechanism (which you could use with your >>> > custom routing) >>> >>> I suppose you mean the possibility of using a different routing protocol >>> instead of HWMP such as OLSR (I've seen there is already some >>> implementation on this). However in our case we are not trying to >>> integrate 11s with bat-adv/bmx6 but just use 11s as layer 1-2 and >>> bat-adv/bmx6 as layer 2.5/3. >>> >>> > 8. power save >>> >>> Yes, that is great, I've seen another post talking about 802.11s in >>> Android, that could bring us many possibilities too :) >>> >>> > 9. interoperability: there are some incompatible ad-hoc >>> implementations >>> > out there as WFA did not test above 11 Mbps. open80211s made vendor >>> > neutrality and interoperability a priority since day one. >>> >>> Right, we've experienced such incompatibilities and this is actually one >>> of the points we are sick of Ad-Hoc. >>> >>> > The only point that is debatable is 2: there aren't that many >>> cards/drivers >>> > that support it. >>> >>> We try to stick at Atheros drivers so here 11s seems to have even better >>> support than Ad-Hoc. >>> >>> > Best of luck, >>> > >>> >>> Thank you for your comments Javier. >>> >>> > Javier >>> > >>> > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Pau via Devel < >>> [email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> >> Hello. >>> >> I'm one of the developers of the libre-mesh project [1]. Our aim is to >>> >> develop an OpenWRT based solution for quick and easy building >>> free/libre >>> >> mesh networks. >>> >> >>> >> Our network architecture is quite different from the common ones, we >>> are >>> >> mixing two routing protocols in layer2 and layer3 (batman-adv and >>> bmx6). >>> >> You can find more information about it here [2]. >>> >> >>> >> Until now we were using Ad-Hoc as link layer, however recently we have >>> >> started to consider the idea of using 11s instead. We are not >>> interested >>> >> in the routing layer (HWMP) because we need some features provided by >>> >> batman-adv, so we disable it by setting the option mesh_forwarding to >>> >> false. >>> >> >>> >> I've already performed some tests and the results look quite good. >>> Using >>> >> 11s instead of ad-hoc bring us some advantages which are: >>> >> >>> >> 1. Better support for 11n >>> >> 2. Better compatibility with drivers >>> >> 3. You can bridge an 11s interface to another interface if necessary >>> >> 4. It does NOT try to synchronize the TSF counter of your wifi card >>> >> 5. You can create up to 8 11s VAP mixed with adhoc, AP, client, etc... >>> >> 5. Get benefit of a newer protocol design >>> >> >>> >> I would like to know your opinion on this topic. None of us now deeply >>> >> how 11s works, so we don't really know if what we are trying to do is >>> a >>> >> madness or a good idea. It would be also very interesting for us to >>> know >>> >> which options can we tun for getting better profit of using 11s as >>> link >>> >> layer. >>> >> >>> >> Thank you for your efforts on developing 11s. >>> >> >>> >> Cheers. >>> >> >>> >> [1] https://dev.libre-mesh.org/projects/libre-mesh >>> >> [2] >>> >> >>> https://dev.libre-mesh.org/projects/libre-mesh/wiki/NetworkArchitecture >>> >> -- >>> >> ./p4u >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> Devel mailing list >>> >> [email protected] >>> >> http://lists.open80211s.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel >>> > >>> >>> -- >>> ./p4u >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Devel mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.open80211s.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel >>> >>> >> > > >
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.open80211s.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
