Am 07.01.2010 um 22:14 schrieb Simon Wunderlich:
Hello,
we probably did not make this very clear in the document, but we will
focus our work on batman-adv (layer 2) and will keep the batmand
(layer 3)
as it is for now. As a consequence, some ideas for BATMAN V are
layer 2
exclusive (mesh
One quick thing that comes to my mind is, that you can specify
allowed or denied interfaces in avahi. Maybe it has chosen the
wrong ones? (should probably be bat0 and not the direct wlan0
interfaces for example)
Of course this is just an assumption in case batman-adv itself
works perfectly well. :)
Moin Alex,
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 05:10:39PM +0100, Alex Morlang wrote:
>
> Am 07.01.2010 um 14:23 schrieb Marek Lindner:
>
> >On Thursday 07 January 2010 15:44:36 Alex Morlang wrote:
> >>are you considering attaching metrics to HNA?
> >
> >That is not necessary as each non-batman host is conne
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 12:35:49PM -0500, Eric Smith wrote:
> I am using batman-adv and can see multiple nodes in my ad-hoc network.
> However I can't seem to see the avahi services of the nodes that require a
> hop. Is there some configuration I need to get this to work?
I've never actually trie
On Friday 08 January 2010 05:12:33 ecfu wrote:
> I guess I am confused then... I am trying to see my avahi services on the
> other side of a hop. the middle node sees the services of both ends, but
> the ends do not see the services of each other. After talking to the Avahi
> users group, they s
Hello,
we probably did not make this very clear in the document, but we will
focus our work on batman-adv (layer 2) and will keep the batmand (layer 3)
as it is for now. As a consequence, some ideas for BATMAN V are layer 2
exclusive (mesh bonding, incoming interface based routing).
On Thu, Jan
I guess I am confused then... I am trying to see my avahi services on the
other side of a hop. the middle node sees the services of both ends, but
the ends do not see the services of each other. After talking to the Avahi
users group, they seemed to think this had something to do with batman
adv
On Thursday 07 January 2010 22:35:50 ecfu wrote:
> Does Batman Adv provide correct mcast routing for link-local mcast groups?
Yes, all multicast packets are simply flooded through the whole network.
Regards,
Marek
Am 07.01.2010 um 14:23 schrieb Marek Lindner:
On Thursday 07 January 2010 15:44:36 Alex Morlang wrote:
are you considering attaching metrics to HNA?
That is not necessary as each non-batman host is connected to a
batman host
which has a metric. Therefore the implementation just needs to
Does Batman Adv provide correct mcast routing for link-local mcast groups?
Join the Wireless Battle Mesh v2.7182 next 26-28 Feb in Hasselt (Belgium):
http://hackerspace.be/Wireless_Battle_Mesh_v_2.7182
Please forward to your wireless mailing-lists, blogs, etc...
--
Benjamin Henrion
FFII Brussels - +32-484-566109 - +32-2-4148403
"In July 2005, after several failed att
On Thursday 07 January 2010 15:44:36 Alex Morlang wrote:
> are you considering attaching metrics to HNA?
That is not necessary as each non-batman host is connected to a batman host
which has a metric. Therefore the implementation just needs to support the HNA
metric. The batman daemon does so si
On Thursday 07 January 2010 14:15:36 Andrew Lunn wrote:
> batctl: VIS subcommand uses -h for help/usage.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Lunn
Thanks for the quick fix (applied in rev 1535)!
Regards,
Marek
Am 18.12.2009 um 10:14 schrieb Marek Lindner:
Hey,
I wrote a summary regarding the current ideas how B.A.T.M.A.N. V
could look
like: http://www.open-mesh.net/wiki/2009-12-18-batman-v-outlook
Feedback welcome!
are you considering attaching metrics to HNA?
How about ipv6?
Cheers,
Mare
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 12:59:13PM +0800, Marek Lindner wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 January 2010 03:11:55 Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > Here is the re-worked batctl.8 file. I made quite a lot of
> > changes. Since the diff will be bigger than the plain file, here is
> > the plain file.
>
> Applied in rev 1533
On Tuesday 05 January 2010 12:20:58 Linus Lüssing wrote:
> Hmm, so far we are having too modes only, vis server being enabled
> or disabled. But in those packet functions we are talking about
> types (two ones only so far again) instead. In the second one I found it
> ok to use the defines, but for
On Tuesday 05 January 2010 03:11:55 Andrew Lunn wrote:
> Here is the re-worked batctl.8 file. I made quite a lot of
> changes. Since the diff will be bigger than the plain file, here is
> the plain file.
Applied in rev 1533. Thanks for the review!
By the way, batctl vis still has "-h" as an optio
17 matches
Mail list logo