[Battlemesh] Network configuration and address plan for Battlemesh v9

Bastian Bittorf bittorf at bluebottle.com
Wed Aug 12 15:07:01 CEST 2015

* Henning Rogge <hrogge at gmail.com> [12.08.2015 14:31]:
> > i like this idea, i just was just to shy for proposing it.
> I think a /24 for each router should be enough... we could add the
> whole /24 on the external LAN, but just (as proposed above) only give
> out a part of the addresses via DHCP.

its not about the DHCP space, but keeping in mind (for the config)
that we can have more then 2 radio's.

> > what also circles in my head:
> > for now we dont use any traffic-prioritizing of the signaling/mesh-proto
> > traffic, dont we?
> OLSRd/OLSRd2 both set the TC flags to get "high priority"... which
> should (I think) be handled both by the default queuing discipline and
> by the wifi driver.

no, does not work. it's easy to kick away a route whith saturating a
link. here in our community we have found this issue e.g. on a weak
5ghz link (3mbit only). when making traffic the ETX-values are getting
bad and more bad >ETX 20 and the route switches (needs <30 sec)...

marking the traffic with DSCP CS6 or CS7 is ok, but not enough.

here the part of the source in olsr1:

and olsrd2:

i can see that it applys correctly with:
user at laptop:~$ sudo tcpdump -v -n ip and ip[1]!=0 -i wlan0
tcpdump: listening on wlan0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 65535 bytes
14:50:22.289593 IP (tos 0xc0, ttl 1, id 0, offset 0, flags [DF], proto IGMP (2), length 32, options (RA)) > igmp query v2

so TOS is '0xc0' which corresponds to DSCP/CS6 = voice

how are other protos are handling this?

bye, bastian

More information about the Battlemesh mailing list