From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ey0-f171.google.com (mail-ey0-f171.google.com [209.85.215.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71109200251; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 08:39:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by eaad12 with SMTP id d12so8858465eaa.16 for ; Tue, 06 Dec 2011 08:39:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=iE0dD/CJ0oUSsbdpHJJaz/S+BFa9RmA0I9K4JWOEOp0=; b=xt6OS9OKnYIFIQPDp/UEKAZTwsfYM4R9IZPvwa6Yhy6sukPuZsyOfu2seDjDrkhuJ0 5kAK2ykSlCIChBLD5/IPgEvcUOpcyC3ills4MxNfXuNIMOseXRTqSaQZxXoa6mGZ+Luz KiKC+mUtuGRTj8p01C8HjUTbh9WaIergA+ftM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.140.1 with SMTP id rc1mr16775064igb.25.1323189543382; Tue, 06 Dec 2011 08:39:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.204.83 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 08:39:03 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 17:39:03 +0100 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net, Juliusz Chroboczek , Gabriel Kerneis , cerowrt@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Cerowrt-devel] potentially dropping mesh networking from cerowrt rc8 [#201] 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: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 16:39:08 -0000 This is the second of a series of emails discussing things that may be dropped from the next release of cerowrt, and is intended to open the discussion, only. The goal is to find better ways to focus on fixing bufferbloat. While I personally find babel very useful, as well as AHCP, convincing anyone that these two bleeding edge technologies are worthwhile on places like the homenet mailing list is an incredible struggle. The consensus there appears to be leaning towards ospf, not that anyone on that list has bothered to test that, either. We have had the ability to use ospf in the system since day one as an optional package. Routing, actually, is not needed in simple setups. Other problems: 1) The AHCP package in openwrt keeps breaking. It broke of the late rc7-smoketest6-ish series, and so far as I know, hasn't been fixed. 1a) The gui interface, even when the package was working, is equally problemantic 2) Firewalling remains REALLY problematic with both babel and AHCP. More often than not, you end up with stuff that doesn't work. 3) Packet loss as a metric appears to not be a good metric anymore. 4) As much as I enjoy mesh networking, the few people that have tried to set it up independently that I know of, have all failed. And lastly, 5) As pointed out during a test in brussels, cerowrt itself has become too complex even for someone familiar with openwrt to deal with it. So with no real users of these subsystems in the field, these two packages can be safely dropped. There were some positive benefits to being able to test ad-hoc mode, having the interfaces available at all times, etc, but deleting the extra interfaces and firewall complexity would help. While I believe that a pure mesh environment works a LOT better than a pure 'as we know networking today' environment, however, the attempt thus far, of merging the 'best of' the two, seems to be worse, than either. This eliminates having to fix bugs #252, #110, #112, #201, and I've never got around to mentioning how much I was hoping for dhcp/ahcp integration. --=20 Dave T=E4ht SKYPE: davetaht US Tel: 1-239-829-5608 FR Tel: 0638645374 http://www.bufferbloat.net