Dear all, first of all thank you for your input.
Tomorrow I'm back in my office and I will start to set up the 802.11s stuff for my nexus 4 according to the steps stated by Bob and the information about wcn36xx (thanks to Yeoh Chun-Yeow) I will (try to) document all necessary steps to enable mesh on my Android Smartphone. I will post the documentation here when I'm finished with it and than we can discuss, if there is a good place to put it to help others with the same issue. Thanks again for your help and I hope that I can count on you if there are further questions, Marco >-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >Von: Devel [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Ross >Wakelin via Devel >Gesendet: Mittwoch, 01. Oktober 2014 00:47 >An: Javier Cardona >Cc: [email protected] >Betreff: Re: 802.11s as link layer in libre-mesh > >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
