[Battlemesh] Network configuration and address plan for Battlemesh v9
dave.taht at gmail.com
Tue Aug 11 18:01:39 CEST 2015
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Henning Rogge <hrogge at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke at toke.dk> wrote:
>>> Henning Rogge <hrogge at gmail.com> writes:
>>>> - ALL IPv4 addresses of the mesh are within a /16 prefix (so we don't
>>>> need to push default routes to attached devices and can keep their
>>>> Internet connection up)
>>> Might I suggest adding IPv6 as well? Or an even more radical suggestion:
>>> Do an IPv6-only test! :)
>> Yes, I will add IPv6 now that we have resolved the IPv4 issues...
>> I will post an update with IPv4 and IPv6 soon.
> In laying out the original /21 design for ipv4, I left room for more
> conventional prefix (/24) distribution, and more radios.
> One of the things I would like to see tested more fully for the meshy
> routing protocols is the more standard AP style multicast, which is
> usually, today, distributed on a powersave (250ms) interval.
> And it would be cool to be able to test devices with 3 or more radios,
> which is increasingly common in the 802.11ac universe, and with things
> that also connect to LTE and/or 802.14.
And I also note that it might get easier to assign addresses, were
devices to bootstrap and name themselves with the new hncp protocols.
>> Battlemesh mailing list
>> Battlemesh at ml.ninux.org
> Dave Täht
> worldwide bufferbloat report:
> What will it take to vastly improve wifi for everyone?
worldwide bufferbloat report:
What will it take to vastly improve wifi for everyone?
More information about the Battlemesh