I had put up several of my thoughts towards extending the ahcp
protocol somewhat, here:
https://github.com/dtaht/dnsmasq-ahcp/blob/master/src/ahcp-extensions.md
I never got much further than getting some syntax support for ahcp
into that version of dnsmasq and having it open the socket, and was
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.jussieu.fr wrote:
What application do you have in mind?
Assume no global connectivity, where do you register?
With the DNS server advertised by AHCP?
With some sort of dynupdate facility, kind of ok, but it is faster to
do in the
helpful!
One of the things I was hoping ahcp would gain one day would be a way
to suggest a name to the ahcp server, and the ahcp server assign one,
much like how dhcp works today.
I've often thought adding names to the fe80:: addresses as well might
be useful.
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:23
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 4:31 PM, sidiq interwebz.hot.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, thank you for your explanation. One last question, how can we know
that babeld is working in our laptop? But not without sending packet with
multi hop. Maybe with a command? Thank you.
ip route will show a
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Antoine Beaupré anar...@anarcat.ath.cx wrote:
On 2012-08-31, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
Second, the fields display is inconsistent. The chan (255) field, for
example, is sometimes there, sometimes not...
The format is extensible, and in principle all fields
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.jussieu.fr wrote:
I will be changing the hardware wifi VO queue in cerowrt 3.3.8-10 to
be sane (2 packets rather than 128).
That's probably going to kill your throughput for high-RTT links, unless
you also fix the lack of
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Denis Ovsienko infrastat...@yandex.ru wrote:
Does anybody know where this difference comes from?
The difference comes from NetworkManager. Its efforts in reproducing
high-metric RTPROT_KERNEL routes with low-metric RTPROT_STATIC ones are
effectively hiding
Babel is designed to react very fast to topology changes -- after
a route is lost, Babel is supposed to switch to an alternate route after
a time that, in the absence of packet lost, is at most 20ms per hop to
the source.
I am mostly writing this message as a heads up for those doing
science
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Denis Ovsienko infrastat...@yandex.ru wrote:
01.07.2012, 03:53, Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com:
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.jussieu.fr
wrote:
babel rxcost 100
Implemented, committed, tested, pushed, and documented
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 12:16 PM, L. Aaron Kaplan aa...@lo-res.org wrote:
On Jul 2, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
How goeth ipv6?
The project may get more options, if we drive the prototype towards a
finished deliverable.
I am very enthusiastic about babel's new authenticated mesh
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.jussieu.fr wrote:
wifi already has enough jitter and delay built into it already, IMHO,
as well as means to arbitrate contention to the medium.
No. The natural jitter of wifi will not prevent synchronisation of
different routers.
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.jussieu.fr wrote:
babel rxcost 100
Implemented, committed, tested, pushed, and documented.
Packaged, compiled, pushed to ceropackages-3-3 on github, and built in
the (as yet untested) development-only build of cerowrt, here:
I am in the process of switching cerowrt over to quagga-babeld, and
now that the ipv4 mesh routing bug is quashed, and the very exciting
authentication code is now in there, I've got the latest quagga-babeld
in the openwrt-compatible ceropackages repo, and built in my latest
cerowrt dev build, and
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Denis Ovsienko infrastat...@yandex.ru wrote:
Basic functionality
***
For IPv6, Babel/Quagga should be just as functional as the standalone
implementation.
For IPv4, you need to have a prefix on your interfaces that covers all
your
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Outback Dingo outbackdi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.jussieu.fr
wrote:
Will this be going int the babeld mainline branch
I see no reasons (technical or legal) why it couldn't. However, I'm
badly overloaded
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.jussieu.fr wrote:
https://groups.google.com/a/hacdc.org/group/Byzantium/browse_thread/thread/360ab7142f7001e5
(You'll need to click on - Show quoted text - to see the content.
Don't we all love Google Groups?)
Good summary, but I'm
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 7:19 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.jussieu.fr wrote:
I went looking to see how ahcpd did it, only to discover that it only
sort of did, in that there is some support for client side delegation
but no server side support in the code at present.
That's right. I've been
I recently had a chance to catch up with the quagga-babel implementation,
and set it up as a leaf node on my laptop and connected it to bloatlab #1,
which is running a mixture of the latest babel and stuff that dated back to
september. Switching between original babeld and quagga's babel was
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.jussieu.fr wrote:
Does anyone use -P? I'm half tempted to remove it in a future release,
since filtering is both more flexible and more intuitive.
I don't, but that begs a filtering question. Is there a right way
to not announce ipv4
I note a few bugs below.
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.jussieu.fr wrote:
Hi to all,
We've merged 1.3.1 into Quagga, and the Quagga command-line interface
has been cleaned up and made more uniform. Quagga has also learnt to
save Babel's configuration (show
Is there a mailing list for comments on the babeld + quagga work?
My comment on this commit is:
Add, delete loses less packets than delete, add.
What is bad about adding a route that is already in the kernel?
commit 78b10139cb14fbc89646ea08282da8d0357382de
Author: Matthieu Boutier
I am giving a public talk tomorrow (wednesday, october 19th) at 14:00
entitled
'Analyzing Bufferbloat in wireless networks'
In Paris, France, at the lincs lab, 4th floor, room #24
I fully intend to give this talk again, (whereever in Europe I am asked!!)
as I'm still shaking the bugs out of
Setting the IPv6 dscp field to CS6 allows for babel packets to
'jump' a bufferbloated queue and get to a destination sooner.
With the pfifo_fast qdisc (the default for ethernet), this
'does the right thing'.
With mac80211 wireless, this moves babel packets into the VO
queue, from which it is
Setting the IPv6 dscp field to CS6 allows for AHCP packets to
'jump' a bufferbloated queue and get to a destination sooner.
With the pfifo_fast qdisc (the default for ethernet), this
'does the right thing'.
With mac80211 wireless, this moves AHCP packets into the VO
queue, from which it is
What would it take to get AHCPD working again in openwrt for multiple
interfaces?
I'd really like to include a fully working version - both scripts and GUI -
in the upcoming cerowrt 1.0 release.
For more details on cerowrt, see: http://cero2.bufferbloat.net
or the cerowrt wiki:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.jussieu.frwrote:
Can you expound on what ahcpd's future is going to look like, and I'll
implement?
Dave, a student of mine is currently working on that. He'll let the
list known when he comes up with a plan.
In the meantime I
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 6:52 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.jussieu.fr wrote:
Once you've fought the bloat, there's hopefully no further need to
classify these packets.
As for classification, with asymmetric networks, the canonical example
of some level needed is moving interactive packets
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Gabriel Kerneis
kern...@pps.jussieu.fr wrote:
Dave,
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 09:54:16AM -0600, Dave Taht wrote:
The head of openwrt and the related luci gui currently are not
configuring ahcpd correctly in the presence of *multiple* client
interfaces
On 04/22/2010 10:42 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
I am curious if you have considered adding a security extension to any
extent in the upcoming releases?
No. What do you have in mind?
Juliusz
I saw you had left room for it, throughout the
On 04/22/2010 12:30 PM, L. Aaron Kaplan wrote:
On Apr 22, 2010, at 7:24 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
On 04/22/2010 10:42 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
I am curious if you have considered adding a security extension to any
extent in the upcoming releases?
No. What do you have
In my never ending quest to find a safe way to experiment on a
production network with new routing protocols, I said to myself, self,
why not try a vlan?
So I took my four test babel hosts again, and setup vlans on each one,
and have issues, (probably my own stupidity)
buddy.local:
ip
On 02/16/2010 08:36 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
Dear all,
I'm currently in the process of rewriting the Babel draft. While the
new version is not quite ready yet, it's good enough for proof-reading.
I have setup a test network running babeld with 4 machines on it. For
purposes of this discussion, however, I only need to talk to two. One is
x86, the other is arm (I've also tried this x86 to x86). The x86 is
ubuntu 9.04, the other is debian lenny... My core problem is that I
don't ever get
201 - 233 of 233 matches
Mail list logo
