On dom, lug 03, 2011 at 07:41:24 +0200, ZioPRoTo (Saverio Proto) wrote: > OK sembra un problema specifico di batman... non so aiutarti. > > Saverio > > > Il 03 luglio 2011 16:43, Gioacchino Mazzurco <[email protected]> ha > scritto: > > nonostante l' mtu sia settato a 1280 ( quello dei pc con iperf ) la > > cpu della pico schizzava uguale, ho disabilitato la frammentazione su > > batman-adv la banda ora resta piu' o meno uguale ma la cpu non schizza > > piu'... > > > > perche' batman frammenta anche se non dovrebbe essere necessario? ( > > wireshark dice che i pacchetti che escono dalla mia macchina sono > > ~700byte e l'mtu e' settato a 1280)
come vedi che batman frammenta? se usi batctl td dovresti vedere i singoli pacchetti (e puoi appurare se sono frammentati o meno). E poi dove leggi l'MTU a 1280? Comunque hai detto che usi ipv6 con pmtu discovery giusto? quindi i pacchetti verrano creati della dimensione esatta per non essere frammentati > > > > l' interfaccia tunnel che ha nome nnx-adv ha l'mtu settato a 1400 > > mentre quello del bridge che contiene bat0 e' 1350 > > > > bat0 invece riporta 1373 nonostante quello del bridge sia 1350... ( > > questo credo sia causato dal fatto che ho disabilitato la > > fragmentation su batman-adv ) > > > > root@OpenWrt:~# brctl show > > bridge name bridge id STP enabled interfaces > > br-clients 8000.7aa872dfafbe no bat0 > > > > root@OpenWrt:~# ip a s > > 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN > > link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00 > > inet 127.0.0.1/8 brd 127.255.255.255 scope host lo > > inet6 ::1/128 scope host > > valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever > > 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast > > state UP qlen 1000 > > link/ether 00:15:6d:7b:96:7a brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff > > inet 192.168.1.21/24 brd 192.168.1.255 scope global eth0 > > inet6 fe80::215:6dff:fe7b:967a/64 scope link > > valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever > > 4: wlan0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1524 qdisc mq state > > UNKNOWN qlen 1000 > > link/ether 00:15:6d:7a:96:7a brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff > > inet 192.168.1.21/24 brd 192.168.1.255 scope global wlan0 > > inet6 2001:470:ca42:ee:ab:15:6d7a:967a/64 scope global > > valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever > > inet6 fe80::215:6dff:fe7a:967a/64 scope link > > valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever > > 5: bat0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1373 qdisc pfifo_fast > > state UNKNOWN qlen 1000 > > link/ether 7a:a8:72:df:af:be brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff > > 7: br-clients: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1350 qdisc > > noqueue state UNKNOWN > > link/ether 7a:a8:72:df:af:be brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff > > inet 192.168.167.21/24 brd 192.168.167.255 scope global br-clients > > inet6 2001:470:ca42:ee:ab:15:6d7b:967a/64 scope global > > valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever > > inet6 fe80::78a8:72ff:fedf:afbe/64 scope link > > valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever > > 8: nnx-adv: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1400 qdisc > > pfifo_fast state UNKNOWN qlen 500 > > link/ether a2:19:0b:84:4f:5e brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff > > inet6 fe80::a019:bff:fe84:4f5e/64 scope link > > valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever > > > > Il 03 luglio 2011 16:12, Gioacchino Mazzurco <[email protected]> ha > > scritto: > >> e' strano.. > >> > >> perche' io sto usando ipv6 per fare i test quindi il path mtu > >> discovery dovrebbe funzionare e in effetti riducendo l'mtu a 1280 e > >> disabilitando cipher ottengo un misero raddoppio della banda quando va > >> bene... > >> > >> Il 03 luglio 2011 14:37, Darkman <[email protected]> ha scritto: > >>> Quello che va meglio :) > >>> Ce ne saranno una dozzina nel kernel, aggiungili. > >>> Così, a naso, vista la natura particolare del canale, un algo abbastanza > >>> tollerante alle perdite/timeout. > >>> Ma questo solo per capire sa cambia qualcosa o siamo sempre con gli stessi > >>> valori.. > >>> > >>> Il giorno 03 luglio 2011 14:23, Gioacchino Mazzurco > >>> <[email protected]> > >>> ha scritto: > >>>> > >>>> non so quale usa di default tu quale mi consigli di usare? > >>>> > >>>> Il 03 luglio 2011 14:18, Darkman <[email protected]> ha scritto: > >>>> > Bene, ora puoi ripetere le prove cambiando l'algoritmo di controllo di > >>>> > congestione sul client iperf. > >>>> > Cosa stai usando ora? Reno? > >>>> > > >>>> > Il giorno 03 luglio 2011 14:09, Gioacchino Mazzurco > >>>> > <[email protected]> > >>>> > ha scritto: > >>>> >> > >>>> >> altri test fissando la quantita' > >>>> >> > >>>> >> [ 4] 0.0-62.2 sec 2.00 MBytes 270 Kbits/sec > >>>> >> [ 4] 0.0-55.3 sec 2.00 MBytes 304 Kbits/sec > >>>> >> [ 4] 0.0-64.2 sec 2.00 MBytes 261 Kbits/sec > >>>> >> [ 4] 0.0-58.8 sec 2.00 MBytes 285 Kbits/sec > >>>> >> [ 4] 0.0-99.6 sec 2.00 MBytes 169 Kbits/sec > >>>> >> [ 4] 0.0-96.4 sec 2.00 MBytes 174 Kbits/sec > >>>> >> [ 4] 0.0-89.8 sec 2.00 MBytes 187 Kbits/sec > >>>> >> [ 4] 0.0-66.4 sec 2.00 MBytes 253 Kbits/sec > >>>> >> [ 4] 0.0-99.9 sec 2.00 MBytes 161 Kbits/sec > >>>> >> [ 4] 0.0-88.1 sec 2.00 MBytes 190 Kbits/sec > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> Il 03 luglio 2011 13:57, Gioacchino Mazzurco <[email protected]> > >>>> >> ha > >>>> >> scritto: > >>>> >> > senza tinc la configurazione rimane uguale ma il traffico al posto > >>>> >> > di > >>>> >> > passare dal tunnel via internet passa solo attraverso i link > >>>> >> > wireless > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > Il 03 luglio 2011 13:51, Antonio Quartulli <[email protected]> ha > >>>> >> > scritto: > >>>> >> >> On dom, lug 03, 2011 at 01:48:37 +0200, Gioacchino Mazzurco wrote: > >>>> >> >>> il test e' sempre PC( iperf -c ) <-- cavo lan --> Piconstation ( > >>>> >> >>> btman-adv + tinc )<-- tinc ---> PC( batman-adv + tinc + iperf -s) > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> anche senza TINC la configurazione rimane uguale? scusa ma non ho > >>>> >> >> capito > >>>> >> >> questo daalle mail precedenti > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> >usa un vincolo temporale o quantitativo, sti valori sono troppo > >>>> >> >>> >deviati.. > >>>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> quei test non sono fatti in parallelo sono fatti in modo > >>>> >> >>> sequenziale > >>>> >> >>> quindi volta per volta c'e' ne e' attivo solo uno > >>>> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> Il 03 luglio 2011 13:40, Darkman <[email protected]> ha scritto: > >>>> >> >>> > Magari se scegliessi un test "unico" sarebbe anche meglio, > >>>> >> >>> > usa un vincolo temporale o quantitativo, sti valori sono troppo > >>>> >> >>> > deviati.. > >>>> >> >>> > Se non mi dicessi della CPU a palla, guardando sta roba ti direi > >>>> >> >>> > che > >>>> >> >>> > è > >>>> >> >>> > congestione.. > >>>> >> >>> > > >>>> >> >>> > Il giorno 03 luglio 2011 13:31, Gioacchino Mazzurco > >>>> >> >>> > <[email protected]> > >>>> >> >>> > ha scritto: > >>>> >> >>> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> altra serie di test > >>>> >> >>> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-18.8 sec 384 KBytes 167 Kbits/sec > >>>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-17.5 sec 384 KBytes 180 Kbits/sec > >>>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-20.0 sec 384 KBytes 157 Kbits/sec > >>>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-21.1 sec 384 KBytes 149 Kbits/sec > >>>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-23.5 sec 512 KBytes 178 Kbits/sec > >>>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-32.3 sec 384 KBytes 97.3 Kbits/sec > >>>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-20.8 sec 384 KBytes 151 Kbits/sec > >>>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-27.7 sec 256 KBytes 75.8 Kbits/sec > >>>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-21.8 sec 256 KBytes 96.3 Kbits/sec > >>>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-14.3 sec 512 KBytes 294 Kbits/sec > >>>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-14.0 sec 512 KBytes 299 Kbits/sec > >>>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-37.6 sec 512 KBytes 112 Kbits/sec > >>>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-18.7 sec 512 KBytes 224 Kbits/sec > >>>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-21.3 sec 384 KBytes 148 Kbits/sec > >>>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-17.9 sec 640 KBytes 293 Kbits/sec > >>>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-24.8 sec 512 KBytes 169 Kbits/sec > >>>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-23.5 sec 512 KBytes 178 Kbits/sec > >>>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-16.4 sec 384 KBytes 192 Kbits/sec > >>>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-21.4 sec 384 KBytes 147 Kbits/sec > >>>> >> >>> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> ho spento dnsmasq che non serviva a niente e andiamo di poco ma > >>>> >> >>> >> meglio > >>>> >> >>> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> Il 03 luglio 2011 13:16, Darkman <[email protected]> ha > >>>> >> >>> >> scritto: > >>>> >> >>> >> > Il sintomo è abbastanza chiaro, ma dubito sia colpa della CPU > >>>> >> >>> >> > o > >>>> >> >>> >> > meglio, > >>>> >> >>> >> > secondo me qualcosa > >>>> >> >>> >> > è stata scritta male, 100Kbps sono davvero ridicoli. A > >>>> >> >>> >> > maggior > >>>> >> >>> >> > ragione > >>>> >> >>> >> > quando ste cpu hanno anche qualche set dedicato > >>>> >> >>> >> > alla crittografia simmetrica... > >>>> >> >>> >> > > >>>> >> >>> >> > Il giorno 03 luglio 2011 13:04, Gioacchino Mazzurco > >>>> >> >>> >> > <[email protected]> > >>>> >> >>> >> > ha scritto: > >>>> >> >>> >> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> ma il problema sembra proprio l'eccessivo utilizzo di cpu > >>>> >> >>> >> >> per > >>>> >> >>> >> >> la > >>>> >> >>> >> >> vpn > >>>> >> >>> >> >> perche' stando in ssh sulla picostation mentre c'e' traffico > >>>> >> >>> >> >> che > >>>> >> >>> >> >> passa > >>>> >> >>> >> >> sulla vpn diventa completamente unresponsive non sente > >>>> >> >>> >> >> nemmeno > >>>> >> >>> >> >> ctrl+c > >>>> >> >>> >> >> sulla shell... quando il traffico finisce mi esegue tutto > >>>> >> >>> >> >> quello > >>>> >> >>> >> >> che > >>>> >> >>> >> >> gli avevo mandato nel fratempo > >>>> >> >>> >> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> Il 03 luglio 2011 13:01, Gioacchino Mazzurco > >>>> >> >>> >> >> <[email protected]> ha > >>>> >> >>> >> >> scritto: > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>Hai la possibilità di usare una CPU + potente (tincare dal > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> PC)? > >>>> >> >>> >> >> > > >>>> >> >>> >> >> > dovrei installarmi anche batman-adv sul pc... > >>>> >> >>> >> >> > > >>>> >> >>> >> >> > Il 03 luglio 2011 12:58, Darkman <[email protected]> ha > >>>> >> >>> >> >> > scritto: > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> E' chiaro che non può essere il tuo upstream, > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> ma sei certo che il collo di bottiglia non sia nella > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> capacità > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> di sta > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> rete > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> mesh tunnellata? > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> Hai provato a lanciare 2 iperf in parallelo? > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> Hai la possibilità di usare una CPU + potente (tincare > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> dal > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> PC)? > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> Il giorno 03 luglio 2011 12:34, Gioacchino Mazzurco > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> <[email protected]> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> ha scritto: > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> la picostation a e la z sono la stessa picostation... > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> dalla > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> picostation a posso decidere se accendere tinc e quindi > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> far > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> passare > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> traffico mesh su internet oppure se usare solo i link > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> wireless > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> dal computer pocco decidere sia di usare la picostation > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> come > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> gw sia > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> di > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> usare il router adsl > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> le casistiche quindi sono 3 > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> iperf via internet senza tinc >500KB/s > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> iperf via mesh senza tinc ~ 20Kb/s > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> iperf via mesh tunnellata su internet con tinc ~100Kb/s > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> Il 03 luglio 2011 12:27, Darkman <[email protected]> ha > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> scritto: > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > Fammi capire: > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > - tra le tua pico(A) e quella(Z) con l'adsl ci sono > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > diversi nodi > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > e > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > con > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > iperf > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > hai risultati di 20Kbps (A->Z) in L3 puro ? Mentre se > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > usi > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > tinc va > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > a > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > 100Kbps? > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > - chi sono gli end-point tinc? > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > Il giorno 03 luglio 2011 12:12, Gioacchino Mazzurco > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > <[email protected]> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > ha scritto: > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> senza tinc praticamente non c'e' connettivita' ( a > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> volte > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> va ma > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> roba > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> tipo 20k perche' sono un sacco di op alcuni dei quali > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> fanno > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> schifo...) > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> se invece faccio iperf passando per internet senza > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> tinc > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> ottengo > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> risultati sempre sopra i 500KB/s > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Il 03 luglio 2011 12:01, Darkman <[email protected]> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> ha > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> scritto: > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > Hai gia controllato i valori tra le 2 pico con e > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > senza > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > tinc? > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > Il giorno 03 luglio 2011 11:45, Gioacchino Mazzurco > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > <[email protected]> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > ha scritto: > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> iperf -c su computer che usa una picostation come > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> gateway -> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Picostation con tinc <- adsl 8 megabit -> iperf > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> --server su > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> eigenlab.org > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Il 03 luglio 2011 11:33, Darkman > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> <[email protected]> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> ha > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> scritto: > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > 100kbps mi pare davvero troppo poco anche per > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > quelle > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > cessonanocpu. > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Come li hai ottenuti sti valori? > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Il giorno 03 luglio 2011 11:10, Gioacchino > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Mazzurco > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > <[email protected]> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > ha scritto: > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Ciao a tutti! > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Facendo dei test mi sono accorto che le vpn > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> con > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> tinc > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> installato > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> sui > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> nodi ci vanno max a 100k anche se la banda > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> dell'adsl e' > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> molta > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> di > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> piu'... ho cominciato a cercare ed ho letto che > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> la > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> causa > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> e' > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> probabilmente la CPU che non ce la fa a fare > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> encryption > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> decryption > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> piu' velocemente di cosi' > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> leggendo il man di tinc ho trovato questo > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Cipher = cipher (blowfish) > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> The symmetric cipher algorithm used > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> to > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> encrypt > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> UDP > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> packets. Any cipher supported by OpenSSL is > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> recognised. > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Fur†> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> thermore, specifying "none" will > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> turn > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> off > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> packet > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> encryption. It is best to use only those > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> ciphers > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> which > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> support > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> CBC mode. > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> mettendo none dovrebbe essere disabilitata l' > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> encryption e > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> quindi > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> avere piu' banda, il meccanismo degli host con > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> il > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> file con > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> la > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> chiave > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> pubblica continua a funzionare disabilitando la > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> cifratura, > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> e > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> soprattutto bastera' aggiungere quell'opzione > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> li > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> oppure > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> bisogna > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> cambiare altre conf? > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Wireless mailing list > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> [email protected] > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Wireless mailing list > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > [email protected] > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Wireless mailing list > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> [email protected] > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > Wireless mailing list > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > [email protected] > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Wireless mailing list > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> [email protected] > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > Wireless mailing list > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > [email protected] > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> Wireless mailing list > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> [email protected] > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> Wireless mailing list > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> [email protected] > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> >> > > >>>> >> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ > >>>> >> >>> >> >> Wireless mailing list > >>>> >> >>> >> >> [email protected] > >>>> >> >>> >> >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>>> >> >>> >> >> > >>>> >> >>> >> > > >>>> >> >>> >> > > >>>> >> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > >>>> >> >>> >> > Wireless mailing list > >>>> >> >>> >> > [email protected] > >>>> >> >>> >> > http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>>> >> >>> >> > > >>>> >> >>> >> > > >>>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ > >>>> >> >>> >> Wireless mailing list > >>>> >> >>> >> [email protected] > >>>> >> >>> >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>>> >> >>> >> > >>>> >> >>> > > >>>> >> >>> > > >>>> >> >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>>> >> >>> > Wireless mailing list > >>>> >> >>> > [email protected] > >>>> >> >>> > http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>>> >> >>> > > >>>> >> >>> > > >>>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> >> >>> Wireless mailing list > >>>> >> >>> [email protected] > >>>> >> >>> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> -- > >>>> >> >> Antonio Quartulli > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> ..each of us alone is worth nothing.. > >>>> >> >> Ernesto "Che" Guevara > >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ > >>>> >> >> Wireless mailing list > >>>> >> >> [email protected] > >>>> >> >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> _______________________________________________ > >>>> >> Wireless mailing list > >>>> >> [email protected] > >>>> >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>>> >> > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > _______________________________________________ > >>>> > Wireless mailing list > >>>> > [email protected] > >>>> > http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Wireless mailing list > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Wireless mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>> > >>> > >> > > -- Antonio Quartulli ..each of us alone is worth nothing.. Ernesto "Che" Guevara _______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list [email protected] http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
