[Ninux-Wireless] tinc CPU optimization
Gioacchino Mazzurco
gmazzurco89 a gmail.com
Dom 3 Lug 2011 16:43:14 CEST
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)
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 a OpenWrt:~# brctl show
bridge name bridge id STP enabled interfaces
br-clients 8000.7aa872dfafbe no bat0
root a 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 <gmazzurco89 a gmail.com> 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 <darkman a darkman.it> 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 <gmazzurco89 a gmail.com>
>> ha scritto:
>>>
>>> non so quale usa di default tu quale mi consigli di usare?
>>>
>>> Il 03 luglio 2011 14:18, Darkman <darkman a darkman.it> 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
>>> > <gmazzurco89 a gmail.com>
>>> > 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 <gmazzurco89 a gmail.com> 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 <ordex a autistici.org> 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 <darkman a darkman.it> 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
>>> >> >>> > <gmazzurco89 a gmail.com>
>>> >> >>> > 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 <darkman a darkman.it> 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
>>> >> >>> >> > <gmazzurco89 a gmail.com>
>>> >> >>> >> > 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
>>> >> >>> >> >> <gmazzurco89 a gmail.com> 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 <darkman a darkman.it> 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
>>> >> >>> >> >> >> <gmazzurco89 a gmail.com>
>>> >> >>> >> >> >> 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 <darkman a darkman.it> 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
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > <gmazzurco89 a gmail.com>
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > 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 <darkman a darkman.it>
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> ha
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> scritto:
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > Hai gia controllato i valori tra le 2 pico con e
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > senza
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > tinc?
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > Il giorno 03 luglio 2011 11:45, Gioacchino Mazzurco
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > <gmazzurco89 a gmail.com>
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > 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
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> <darkman a darkman.it>
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> 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
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > <gmazzurco89 a gmail.com>
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > 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.
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Furâ€
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> 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
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Wireless a ml.ninux.org
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Wireless mailing list
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Wireless a ml.ninux.org
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Wireless mailing list
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Wireless a ml.ninux.org
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > _______________________________________________
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > Wireless mailing list
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > Wireless a ml.ninux.org
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Wireless mailing list
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Wireless a ml.ninux.org
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > _______________________________________________
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > Wireless mailing list
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > Wireless a ml.ninux.org
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> Wireless mailing list
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> Wireless a ml.ninux.org
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >>> >> >> >> Wireless mailing list
>>> >> >>> >> >> >> Wireless a ml.ninux.org
>>> >> >>> >> >> >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >>> >> >> >
>>> >> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >>> >> >> Wireless mailing list
>>> >> >>> >> >> Wireless a ml.ninux.org
>>> >> >>> >> >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>> >> >>> >> >>
>>> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >>> >> > _______________________________________________
>>> >> >>> >> > Wireless mailing list
>>> >> >>> >> > Wireless a ml.ninux.org
>>> >> >>> >> > http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >>> >> Wireless mailing list
>>> >> >>> >> Wireless a ml.ninux.org
>>> >> >>> >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>> > _______________________________________________
>>> >> >>> > Wireless mailing list
>>> >> >>> > Wireless a ml.ninux.org
>>> >> >>> > http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >>> Wireless mailing list
>>> >> >>> Wireless a ml.ninux.org
>>> >> >>> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> --
>>> >> >> Antonio Quartulli
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> ..each of us alone is worth nothing..
>>> >> >> Ernesto "Che" Guevara
>>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >> Wireless mailing list
>>> >> >> Wireless a ml.ninux.org
>>> >> >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> Wireless mailing list
>>> >> Wireless a ml.ninux.org
>>> >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Wireless mailing list
>>> > Wireless a ml.ninux.org
>>> > http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>> >
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wireless mailing list
>>> Wireless a ml.ninux.org
>>> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless a ml.ninux.org
>> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>>
>
Maggiori informazioni sulla lista
Wireless