From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp111.iad.emailsrvr.com (smtp111.iad.emailsrvr.com [207.97.245.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C783E21F0BB for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 07:15:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp51.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 2D0EF20B79; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 10:15:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: from legacy13.wa-web.iad1a (legacy13.wa-web.iad1a.rsapps.net [192.168.4.99]) by smtp51.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 7685720B7B; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 10:15:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from reed.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by legacy13.wa-web.iad1a (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64DB1370409; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 10:15:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by apps.rackspace.com (Authenticated sender: dpreed@reed.com, from: dpreed@reed.com) with HTTP; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 10:15:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 10:15:02 -0400 (EDT) From: dpreed@reed.com To: "Denis Ovsienko" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_20120705101502000000_49860" Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Type: html In-Reply-To: <269551341401679@web1g.yandex.ru> References: <2187151341044351@web9d.yandex.ru> <7isjdcpm1q.fsf@lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr> <40851341093226@web25d.yandex.ru> <7ik3yoz7p2.fsf@lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr> <1521341229978@web13h.yandex.ru> <269551341401679@web1g.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <1341497702.411823178@apps.rackspace.com> X-Mailer: webmail7.0 Cc: cerowrt-devel Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [Babel-users] switching cerowrt to quagga-babeld issues X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 14:15:07 -0000 ------=_20120705101502000000_49860 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0ARegarding radio benchmarking, note that the effect of the surface of the= dirt/vegetation below line of sight seriously affects 2.4 and 5 GHz. It's= been measured and reported (forget which journal) by folks from Berkeley w= ho just did some empirical studies. E.g. 6 inch vs 11 inch grass 5 feet be= low the antenna makes a big difference, etc.=0A =0AOn the other hand, you k= now that in the real world, lab benchmarks of radios mean nothing at all, e= specially in a protocol based on contention where the energy in the beginni= ng of the packet is crucial, independent of the decodability of the bits, b= ut the decodability of the bits affects the backoff, etc.=0A =0AI would sug= gest that tests that matter will be carried out in the densely populated wo= rlds of cities, towns, ... If a mesh cannot survive in that environment, i= t's going to be of very, very limited usefulness, other than to provide Ph.= D. dissertations in "optimal" routing in *imaginary* conditions.=0A =0AForg= et "optimal". Stable, scalable, resilient, simple, and good enough is far= more important, practically.=0A =0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: "Den= is Ovsienko" =0ASent: Wednesday, July 4, 2012 7:34a= m=0ATo: "cerowrt-devel" =0ASubject: Re= : [Cerowrt-devel] [Babel-users] switching cerowrt to quagga-babeld issues= =0A=0A=0A=0A>> The project may get more options, if we drive the prototype= towards a finished deliverable.=0A>=0A> I am very enthusiastic about babel= 's new authenticated mesh routing!=0A>=0A> It is also my opinion that witho= ut a decent drop and packet mixing=0A> strategy that mesh networks will per= form badly under load. I'm hoping=0A> that fq_codel does well, although it = seems very likely that an=0A> aggregation aware and fq_codel-like strategy = needs to move into the=0A> mac80211 layer, which is perhaps years worth of = work.=0A>=0A> What would a deliverable look like? What would interest peopl= e enough=0A> to get some good data, papers written, progress made, more=0A>= users/developers and cash in the door?=0A=0AHello.=0A=0AConsidering CeroWr= t as a free software project, it may be the right time to measure each of t= he following:=0A=0A1. Amount of manpower/cash required to keep the project = afloat and developing.=0A2. Added value, which exists due to its unique pro= perties.=0A3. Population of developers willing to invest their manpower/cas= h.=0A4. Population of users willing to use the outcomes as long as it helps= them stay focused on their own needs.=0A=0AAccounting and distributing Cer= oWrt daily duties will make some space for a day job, at least part-time, w= hich is very important. Focusing the 2nd item to help users understand the = point of switching a Netgear box to CeroWrt will help the community grow na= turally. The deliverable could come like this:=0A=0A"Here is a small automa= tic test, which will measure the jitter, delay and RTT of your connection t= hrough a Netgear box to a server far on the Internet. Record these numbers = and repeat the test after flashing the 3800 with this stable CeroWrt releas= e. Let us know the difference and consider these unique features, which are= available in CeroWrt only:=0A* something good=0A* something else=0A...=0AH= ave fun!=0A"=0A=0A>=0A> ...=0A>=0A> I presently have 4 Nanostation M5, 3 pi= costation HP, and 5 wndr3700s.=0A> I've found a good site to work with 2.4g= hz and 5.x ghz radios (a 110=0A> acre campground that has given me permissi= on to play here) and test=0A> fq_codel in various forms of cerowrt in, for = as long as I like.=0A>=0A> One of the things we've really struggled with wa= s in today's saturated=0A> 2.4ghz environment there is no way to benchmark = both radios. We've=0A> been reduced to suggesting we 'flee to the mountains= ' in order to get=0A> good results. OK, I just did that.=0A=0APicking some = antenna types other than omnidirectional may be another solution, but it de= pends.=0A=0A-- =0A Denis Ovsienko=0A_______________________________________= ________=0ACerowrt-devel mailing list=0ACerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net= =0Ahttps://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel ------=_20120705101502000000_49860 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Regarding = radio benchmarking, note that the effect of the surface of the dirt/vegetat= ion below line of sight seriously affects 2.4 and 5 GHz.  It's been me= asured and reported (forget which journal) by folks from Berkeley who just = did some empirical studies.  E.g. 6 inch vs 11 inch grass 5 feet below= the antenna makes a big difference, etc.

=0A

 

=0A

On the other hand, you = know that in the real world, lab benchmarks of radios mean nothing at all, = especially in a protocol based on contention where the energy in the beginn= ing of the packet is crucial, independent of the decodability of the bits, = but the decodability of the bits affects the backoff, etc.

=0A

 

=0A

I wo= uld suggest that tests that matter will be carried out in the densely popul= ated worlds of cities, towns, ...  If a mesh cannot survive in that en= vironment, it's going to be of very, very limited usefulness, other than to= provide Ph.D. dissertations in "optimal" routing in *imaginary* conditions= .

=0A

 

=0A

Forget "optimal".   Stable, scalable, resilient, simp= le, and good enough is far more important, practically.

=0A

 

=0A

-----Orig= inal Message-----
From: "Denis Ovsienko" <infrastation@yandex.ru>= ;
Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2012 7:34am
To: "cerowrt-devel" <ce= rowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [Ba= bel-users] switching cerowrt to quagga-babeld issues

=0A=0A

>> &= nbsp;The project may get more options, if we drive the prototype towards a = finished deliverable.
>
> I am very enthusiastic about babe= l's new authenticated mesh routing!
>
> It is also my opini= on that without a decent drop and packet mixing
> strategy that mes= h networks will perform badly under load. I'm hoping
> that fq_code= l does well, although it seems very likely that an
> aggregation aw= are and fq_codel-like strategy needs to move into the
> mac80211 la= yer, which is perhaps years worth of work.
>
> What would a= deliverable look like? What would interest people enough
> to get = some good data, papers written, progress made, more
> users/develop= ers and cash in the door?

Hello.

Considering CeroWrt = as a free software project, it may be the right time to measure each of the= following:

1. Amount of manpower/cash required to keep the proj= ect afloat and developing.
2. Added value, which exists due to its uni= que properties.
3. Population of developers willing to invest their ma= npower/cash.
4. Population of users willing to use the outcomes as lon= g as it helps them stay focused on their own needs.

Accounting a= nd distributing CeroWrt daily duties will make some space for a day job, at= least part-time, which is very important. Focusing the 2nd item to help us= ers understand the point of switching a Netgear box to CeroWrt will help th= e community grow naturally. The deliverable could come like this:

"Here is a small automatic test, which will measure the jitter, delay and= RTT of your connection through a Netgear box to a server far on the Intern= et. Record these numbers and repeat the test after flashing the 3800 with t= his stable CeroWrt release. Let us know the difference and consider these u= nique features, which are available in CeroWrt only:
* something good<= br />* something else
...
Have fun!
"

>
&= gt; ...
>
> I presently have 4 Nanostation M5, 3 picostatio= n HP, and 5 wndr3700s.
> I've found a good site to work with 2.4ghz= and 5.x ghz radios (a 110
> acre campground that has given me perm= ission to play here) and test
> fq_codel in various forms of cerowr= t in, for as long as I like.
>
> One of the things we've re= ally struggled with was in today's saturated
> 2.4ghz environment t= here is no way to benchmark both radios. We've
> been reduced to su= ggesting we 'flee to the mountains' in order to get
> good results.= OK, I just did that.

Picking some antenna types other than omni= directional may be another solution, but it depends.

--
D= enis Ovsienko
_______________________________________________
Cer= owrt-devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https= ://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

=0A ------=_20120705101502000000_49860--