Hey Gabriel,
thanks for bringing the discussion to the batman ml and giving some constructive
input. I've written this bonding/alternating feature some time ago, and we
released
it at WBMv3 together with this little documentation to be found in the wiki.
Actually,
I considered the feature
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Simon Wunderlich
simon.wunderl...@s2003.tu-chemnitz.de wrote:
Hey Gabriel,
thanks for bringing the discussion to the batman ml and giving some
constructive
input. I've written this bonding/alternating feature some time ago, and we
released
it at WBMv3
On Friday, March 09, 2012 17:17:47 Benjamin Henrion wrote:
Maybe algorithm is a big word for a little feature like that. The
bonding and interface alternating basically work in two steps:
1) detect that a neighbor is reachable via two different links
2) use the two different links for
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Marek Lindner lindner_ma...@yahoo.de wrote:
On Friday, March 09, 2012 17:17:47 Benjamin Henrion wrote:
Maybe algorithm is a big word for a little feature like that. The
bonding and interface alternating basically work in two steps:
1) detect that a
On Friday, March 09, 2012 17:56:17 Benjamin Henrion wrote:
Since this question keeps coming up and also seems to be the reason for
the confusion, let me make it clear once more: There is no special
protocol treatment in any way. No added cost, no protocol change, no
magic commandline
So on which interface the packet is gonna be transmitted?
Hopefully the optimum interface.
There was a short productive phase when we managed to get Marek to
shut up. Unfortunately, it looks like this phase is over.
-- Juliusz
Hi,
On 9 March 2012 11:26, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.jussieu.fr wrote:
So on which interface the packet is gonna be transmitted?
Hopefully the optimum interface.
There was a short productive phase when we managed to get Marek to
shut up. Unfortunately, it looks like this phase is over.
Hi Benjamin,
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 10:17:47AM +0100, Benjamin Henrion wrote:
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Simon Wunderlich
Maybe algorithm is a big word for a little feature like that. The bonding
and interface alternating basically work in two steps:
1) detect that a neighbor is
Hi!
Just a note for those who do not know about the nice atmosphere of the
WBM events: those who are fighting in this thread are in fact good
friends and can have very very interesting discussions ;)
Love-hate relationship. ;-)
Mitar
Hey Simon,
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 09:56:36AM +0100, Simon Wunderlich wrote:
1) The detection part is batman-specific, we use the the PRIMARIES_FIRST_HOP
flag
to do that. As a reminder (that might be documented somewhere else):
* OGMs from the primary interface are broadcasted on ALL
On Friday, March 09, 2012 19:12:03 Gabriel Kerneis wrote:
When we receive OGMs with PRIMARIES_FIRST_HOP flags on different
interfaces, we know that it came from the same neighbor, just from
different interfaces. We have two links to this neighbor.
I think my primary misunderstanding comes
They just decide upfront a set of alternative interfaces, and then
choose the best interface that it is not the incoming one among this
set, for each packet.
Can you confirm that, Simon?
You have no way to declare that two different wifi interfaces interfere, for
instance; it is roughly
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 07:26:54PM +0800, Marek Lindner wrote:
The concept of a primary interface goes back into the early days of batman
and
primarily is an optimization to reduce overhead. At some point we realized
that it is not necessary to flood the mesh with OGMs from each and every
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 01:04:55PM +0100, Gabriel Kerneis wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 07:26:54PM +0800, Marek Lindner wrote:
The concept of a primary interface goes back into the early days of batman
and
primarily is an optimization to reduce overhead. At some point we realized
that
Consider the following topology (all links assumed lossless), where
we're trying to route from A to S:
B---C
/ \\
/ \\
A S
\/
\ /
B'---*C' (C' has just a single interface)
In Babel, even with just Z1,the diversity
Antonio,
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 01:39:06PM +0100, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
Does that mean that it is impossible to announce a route on some interfaces
only? It looks like a rather arbitrary limitation.
OGMs are broadcasted over all the interfaces (there may be some neighs
reachable
My question is about some kind of policy routing (setup by the
administrator,
not guessed by batman).
Consider the following topology:
l0 l1
A B C
l2
where --- is a single link (l0) and === are two links (l1 and l2).
Now imagine that the
The metric is simply based on TQ. C=S will probably have a better
local TQ than C'-S because of the load balancing over the two links,
Sorry for the confusion, I used « = » to mark a different frequency than
« - ». There's only the one link between C and S, it's just using
a different
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 02:10:02PM +0100, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
The metric is simply based on TQ. C=S will probably have a better
local TQ than C'-S because of the load balancing over the two links,
Sorry for the confusion, I used « = » to mark a different frequency than
« - ».
-Original Message-
From: battlemesh-boun...@ml.ninux.org [mailto:battlemesh-
boun...@ml.ninux.org] On Behalf Of Juliusz Chroboczek
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 2:10 PM
To: Battle of the Mesh Mailing List
Cc: b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org
Subject: Re: [Battlemesh] Diversity in
Andrew,
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 01:09:26PM +, andrew.l...@ascom.com wrote:
Consider the following topology:
l0 l1
A B C
l2
where --- is a single link (l0) and === are two links (l1 and l2).
Now imagine that the administator wants
Andrew,
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 01:09:26PM +, andrew.l...@ascom.com wrote:
Remember that BATMAN is a Layer 2 mesh, not layer 3.
Sorry, I just recalled what it implies. You can ignore my previous answer, I
was focused on babel-like, layer 3 examples.
--
Gabriel
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:36 PM, andrew.l...@ascom.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: battlemesh-boun...@ml.ninux.org [mailto:battlemesh-
boun...@ml.ninux.org] On Behalf Of Juliusz Chroboczek
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 2:10 PM
To: Battle of the Mesh Mailing List
Cc:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 02:49:28PM +0100, Gabriel Kerneis wrote:
Andrew,
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 01:09:26PM +, andrew.l...@ascom.com wrote:
Remember that BATMAN is a Layer 2 mesh, not layer 3.
Sorry, I just recalled what it implies.
:-)
You can ignore my previous answer, I was
l0l1
A B -- C Example:
\ / I want to restrict the link l1 to communication
D -- E -- Fbetween A and C. (Nice frying-pan, isn’t it? ;-)
I think that Andrew has answered your question. BATMAN is a pure mesh
protocol; it
On Friday, March 09, 2012 22:07:37 Benjamin Henrion wrote:
C=S will probably have a better TQ if it is not getting as much
interference due to collisions. A will get to know about this in the
path TQ. Better still, B-C will also probably have a better TQ, since
the link C=S is not
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Marek Lindner lindner_ma...@yahoo.de wrote:
On Friday, March 09, 2012 22:07:37 Benjamin Henrion wrote:
C=S will probably have a better TQ if it is not getting as much
interference due to collisions. A will get to know about this in the
path TQ. Better still,
With such metric, you don't make any difference between a 56K
telephone line and a 10Ge NIC.
If you 10Ge has 5pc packet loss and your 56K line has 0pc, your TQ
will be prefer the 56k link.
If my 10Ge has 5% packet loss, its broken. I don't want to use
it. Falling back to the 56K link is the
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Andrew Lunn and...@lunn.ch wrote:
With such metric, you don't make any difference between a 56K
telephone line and a 10Ge NIC.
If you 10Ge has 5pc packet loss and your 56K line has 0pc, your TQ
will be prefer the 56k link.
If my 10Ge has 5% packet loss, its
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 05:07:37PM +0100, Benjamin Henrion wrote:
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Andrew Lunn and...@lunn.ch wrote:
With such metric, you don't make any difference between a 56K
telephone line and a 10Ge NIC.
If you 10Ge has 5pc packet loss and your 56K line has 0pc, your
So when comparing a 1Mbps and a 54Mbps link, probably the TQ for the
54Mbps link will be better than the 1Mbps link.
That was our intuition too, but experiments we did in Brussels using 802.11n
multiradio routers, with Benjamin and Juliusz, seemed to show that packet loss
(as measured by
I've got no results on 11n. I've done most of my work on 11g. I will
see if i've got any results for 11g which might be appropriate.
Maybe
Upps. Got side tracked, disrupted, and hit send
Maybe you could perform some more tests in this direction at the next
WBM in Athens?
Andrew
32 matches
Mail list logo
