> Yup. They will always have the problem. My point was that if you see
> a WRT54G (as opposed to the WRT54GL), you have to dig deeper to figure
> out if they can run OpenWRT or not. Some can; some cannot
A simple rule of thumb. Recent units can't.
> Nothing like changing hardware in a si
l Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:devel-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Gettys
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 10:38 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: OLPC Developer's List
> Subject: Re: WDS problems observed in today's testing
>
>
> On M
On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 10:22 -0800, Javier Cardona wrote:
> Jim,
>
> On 3/3/08, Jim Gettys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > These were WRT54GL's running OpenWRT, just to ask the exact
> > configuration?
>
> Not sure if it was a WRT54G or WRT54GL, but I'm certain that it was
> running the original
I believe it is a WRT54Gv8 model (which, btw has not enough memory to run
some of the openwrt variants around). It is brand new AP (bought it at
BestBuy) with stock LInksys firmware. It is still at 1cc (I brought another
(same model) with me so not to disturb the tests in place).
On Mon, Mar 3, 2
Jim,
On 3/3/08, Jim Gettys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These were WRT54GL's running OpenWRT, just to ask the exact
> configuration?
Not sure if it was a WRT54G or WRT54GL, but I'm certain that it was
running the original Linksys firmware.
Javier
--
Javier Cardona
cozybit Inc.
___
jim wrote:
> These were WRT54GL's running OpenWRT, just to ask the exact
> configuration?
>
> Note that (the last I heard) some of the newer WRT54G's have too little
> RAM to run OpenWRT, which is why the WRT54GL model was introduced, IIRC.
i just searched the openwrt site to confirm that wh
These were WRT54GL's running OpenWRT, just to ask the exact
configuration?
Note that (the last I heard) some of the newer WRT54G's have too little
RAM to run OpenWRT, which is why the WRT54GL model was introduced, IIRC.
- Jim
On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 16:47 +1030, Kim Ha
Javier Cardona wrote:
> What I recall is 50% duty cycle and a channel grade of 22/100. The
> channel grade takes into account not only the duty cycle but also the
> noise floor.
> I did not re-check those numbers after turning the AP off, but there
> was a drastic improvement of the channel energy
John,
On 3/1/08, John Watlington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I was told that 17 laptops were associated on Friday, w. lots of
> bandwidth left over.
>
> Question 1: What is "lots of bandwidth" ? CSMC networks don't work
> well past around 50 - 60% of available bandwidth...
What I recall
I was told that 17 laptops were associated on Friday, w. lots of
bandwidth
left over.
Question 1: What is "lots of bandwidth" ? CSMC networks don't work
well
past around 50 - 60% of available bandwidth...
Question 2: Did this bandwidth measurement include the relayed WDS
frames ?
wad
MAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chris
> Ball" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "OLPC Developer's List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Jim Gettys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ricardo Carrano"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc
> Subject
> Re: WDS problems
Javier Cardona wrote:
> Kim, Michail,
>
> The conclusion to all of this is that we should not use WRT54G in
> deployments, regardless of whether mesh is used or not (in fact, if we
> *only* use mesh we don't have this problem as the AP ignores mesh
> multicast traffic now). The WRT54G will forward
TECTED]>, "Kim Quirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Michail Bletsas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chris Ball" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"OLPC Developer's List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jim Gettys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ricardo Carran
Was anyone able to get a test with a different AP? We were only able
to associate something like 20 laptops on Fri. Do we believe it should
be 30 or more?
Kim
On 3/1/08, Javier Cardona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kim, Michail,
>
> The conclusion to all of this is that we should not use WRT54
Kim, Michail,
The conclusion to all of this is that we should not use WRT54G in
deployments, regardless of whether mesh is used or not (in fact, if we
*only* use mesh we don't have this problem as the AP ignores mesh
multicast traffic now). The WRT54G will forward multicast traffic to
all other A
Ricardo,
> - The access point Javier mentions is the one I bought yesterday (Linksys
> WRT54G)
Agreed, yes:
35 00:1d:7e:44:ce:6e Broadcast Beacon frame,SSID: "linksys"
> - Most of this traffic is retransmission (3606):
> (wlan.fc.ds == 3 and wlan.sa[0-2] == 00:17:C4 and wlan.ta[4-5] == ce:6e) &
(last version was incomplete):
Just to add that:
- The access point Javier mentions is the one I bought yesterday (Linksys
WRT54G)
- Most of this traffic is retransmission (3606):
(wlan.fc.ds == 3 and wlan.sa[0-2] == 00:17:C4 and wlan.ta[4-5] == ce:6e) &&
(wlan.fc.retry == 1)
- It is also inter
Just to add that:
- The access point Javier mentions is the one I bought yesterday (Linksys
WRT54G)
- Most of this traffic is retransmission (3606):
(wlan.fc.ds == 3 and wlan.sa[0-2] == 00:17:C4 and wlan.ta[4-5] == ce:6e) &&
(wlan.fc.retry == 1)
- It is also interesting to detect other wds peers
Michail, Chris,
This afternoon I captured some traffic while Chris was running tests
for Peru. The test setup consisted on ~25 laptops associated to a
WRT54 access point. When the laptops were on, associated and (not
sure about this) idle, we observed a high volume of wireless traffic.
The spec
19 matches
Mail list logo
