willi.uebelherr at riseup.net
Thu Dec 15 21:07:54 CET 2016
thank you for your answer. I load the data sepcification page.
Under "Compliance Standard" i found:
Canada RF Approval
Canada RF Report
AS/NZS 4268 Australia, New Zealand
And in the blog altermundi
we find it as a project of Latin America. I ask you, what baseboard you
use? Who developed, construct and fabricate it? Who defined the
architecture, the external components, that you have to use?
In the data specification, all details are missing.
I have some similar experience with the CIAA (Computadora Industrial
Abierta Argentina) project. Reference designs from Phillips, Intel and
Xilinx. The different motherboards are always produced outside. But then
we hear, it is an Argentina project.
CIAA - Computadora Industrial Abierta Argentina
If we play, we should play with open cards.
many greetings, willi
On 15/12/2016 14:52, Gui Iribarren wrote:
> On 15/12/16 18:37, willi uebelherr wrote:
>> On 15/12/2016 07:24, Gui Iribarren wrote:
>>> I'm thinking out loud, that maybe with the librerouter we could set
>>> something up, when we have deployed them in the real networks. We'll
>>> have double-flash space, so we can put two firmwares (originally
>>> intended for safe sysupgrading, but could be used for "testbed" and
>>> "production" firmwares). Combining that with the hardware watchdog...
>>> Anyway, will come back to this idea in a few months when we have the
>> Dear Gui and all,
>> i searched for LibreRouter.
> totally unrelated
> totally unrelated as well
>> Open Router
>> LibreRouter project awarded FRIDA 2016 scale-up grant
> these two are correct
> as well as https://librerouter.org/
> sorry for the confusion
> re: benjamin regarding watchdog,
> it's a PIC that every 5 minutes decides to reboot the board or not. If
> it received a "ping" from userspace (simple bit up, bit down through a
> gpio), it won't reboot. Then, there's a very simple script running in
> userspace, sending that ping every 2 minutes for example. In case of a
> kernel panic or similar, the watchdog will not get pinged and will
> reboot the node.
> There's already the userspace software in available in openwrt, thanks
> to the implementation of such a watchdog in Open-Mesh routers.
>> It seems to me a big confusion. I agree and understand to develop the
>> router hardware itself. But from my experience in Latin America, also in
>> Argentina, never i have found a real strong process for hw-development.
>> And in Github Librerouter/Librekernel we find a large collection of
>> anything. But the task for a router is to route the packets through.
>> Therefore, the fisrst question is, based on what information we can
>> route. then, we can ask us, what hardware we need.
>> And the routers in our environment act mostly with radio
>> interconnection. But here we can abstract from the concrete transmission
>> technology and use a bidirectional connection to the transmitter device.
>> For cable connection we can use it directly.
>> This means, that in our space also the transmission technology stay in
>> the center. And i think, there we have the biggest challenges. because
>> if we look in the community networks reality, the lack of net-structure
>> is the biggest lack for community networks.
>> I don't understand this project.
>> many greetings, willi
>> Asuncion, Paraguay
>> Battlemesh mailing list
>> Battlemesh at ml.ninux.org
> Battlemesh mailing list
> Battlemesh at ml.ninux.org
More information about the Battlemesh