[Ninux-Wireless] tinc CPU optimization
ZioPRoTo (Saverio Proto)
zioproto a gmail.com
Dom 3 Lug 2011 19:41:24 CEST
OK sembra un problema specifico di batman... non so aiutarti.
Saverio
Il 03 luglio 2011 16:43, Gioacchino Mazzurco <gmazzurco89 a gmail.com> ha scritto:
> 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