[Battlemesh] Network configuration and address plan for Battlemesh v9

Ferry Huberts mailings at hupie.com
Tue Aug 11 18:29:47 CEST 2015

On 11/08/15 18:00, Dave Taht 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.

It just so happens that we have a comparable system in production today: 
it uses olsrd v1 with the multi-smart-gateway tunnel system I 
implemented, together with LTE, SatCom, tethered USB phones/tablets and 
fixed-cable connections, all hot-pluggable.

The multi-smart-gateway tunnel system is a precursor to full multipath 
usage, which is on the roadmap for future usage.

I can probably share our configs but will have to look into that. No 

>> Henning
>> _______________________________________________
>> Battlemesh mailing list
>> Battlemesh at ml.ninux.org
>> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/battlemesh

Ferry Huberts

More information about the Battlemesh mailing list