[LibreQoS] [NNagain] shared wireless access

Wed Oct 18 23:38:06 EDT 2023

Oh man, I love a good mesh network chat!  The term mesh has been
mis-applied often, most consumer mesh devices are not mesh, they are
self-organizing trees but the branches are not actively connected.  I
describe this as a monkey in a tree.  The monkey/user is only ever on one
branch at a time.  A true mesh has multiple connected paths and is
represented by a spider web.  With that out of the way...

I run a 5Ghz mesh in production delivering 50Mbps services.  This network
currently lives behind libreqos.  It's a hybrid with a 5Ghz mesh medium and
60Ghz backhaul links (mikrotik wap 60 or cube 60s) piping fresh hot bits
deeper into the mesh.  It's single radio, WDS dynamic based, limited by the
hardware (mikrotik) and the 'ac radios.

I'm absolutely dying for a dual radio WiFi6 product with beamforming
antennas and either WDS or 802.11s mode that I can get openwrt on so I can
run batman-adv.

Even higher on my list is a pure mmwave mesh product.  real mesh, not the
self-organizing tree model like unifi 'mesh' uses.  This could be single
radio and rely on the complete lack of nlos to keep noise down but dual
radio even better.   I have some mikrotik script solutions for bridging
individual VLANs down from 802.11'ad links into a device that had those
VLANs all pre-configured in batman-adv but I lack the 360 degree AP for
it... and I have too many projects going on already...

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 6:48 PM David Lang via LibreQoS <
libreqos at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> A note on mesh networks.
>
> a true mesh where any node can pop up and self organizes to join the
> network
> runs into the hidden transmitter problem (you have stations A, B and C, A
> and C
> can hear B but can't hear each other so as they try to communicate, they
> step on
> each other so that B can't understand either of them)
>
> relaying on the same band (let alone on the same channel) doesn't scale.
>
> pure wifi connected nodes where you use 2.4GHz channels for user access
> and 5GHz
> channels for infrastructure links can work very well, but you need to plan
> your
> channel allocations properly, have nodes with more than one 5GHz radio (or
> you
> run into the hidden transmitter problem again on the infrastructure side),
> and
> use wires to connect the infrastructure nodes when you can.
>
> David Lang
>
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2023, Dave Taht via Nnagain wrote:
>
> > Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 20:54:14 -0700
> > From: Dave Taht via Nnagain <nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net>
> > To: thejoff at mail.com, libreqos <libreqos at lists.bufferbloat.net>
> > Cc: Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com>
> > Subject: [NNagain] shared wireless access
> >
> > Sorry about that. this list is intended to be more political in scope.
> > Moving the nnagain list to the bcc.
> >
> > The libreqos list and chatroom has some smart wisps on it, but your
> > conditions are a bit vague? Could you describe your scenario more
> > fully?
> >
> > There are many mesh network types out there. I am most familiar with
> > openwrt-derived solutions on pre-802.11ax. It is possible using older
> > wifi tech (that supports adhoc mode) to build a highly redundant mesh
> > of connecting everything to everything. Examples of that include
> > guifi, wlan-slovinia, nyc-mesh, freifunk, etc. But people tend to
> > rebuild/reflash their own routers to support it fully.
> >
> > If you are talking about having more than one exit node from a mesh,
> > the babel protocol is sometimes used for that. (not clear what you are
> > asking)
> >
> > Other examples today might include ubnt's mesh stuff, or tarana's NLOS
> > wan, or tachyon... but there are many products in the market, and help
> > can be found in a couple different chatrooms.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 8:41 PM le berger des photons via Nnagain
> > <nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> as interesting as this all is,  this wasn't the discussion I'm looking
> for.  Perhaps you know of somewhere I can go to find what I'm looking for.
> I'm looking to figure out how to share two different accesses among the
> same group of clients depending on varying conditions of the main wifi
> links which serve them all.  Thanks for any direction.
> >>
> >> On Sun, Oct 15, 2023 at 2:25 AM Dave Cohen via Nnagain <
> nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I’m a couple years removed from dealing with this on the provider side
> but the focus has shifted rapidly to adding core capacity and large
> capacity ports to the extent that smaller capacity ports like 1 Gbps aren’t
> going to see much more price compression. Cost per bit will come down at
> higher tiers but there simply isn’t enough focus at lower levels at the
> hardware providers to afford carriers more price compression at 1 Gbps,
> even 10 Gbps. I would expect further price compression in access costs but
> not really in transit costs below 10 Gbps.
> >>>
> >>> In general I agree that IXs continue to proliferate relative to
> quantity, throughput and geographic reach, almost to the degree that
> mainland Europe has been covered for years. In my home market of Atlanta,
> I’m aware of at least four IXs that have been established here or entered
> the market in the last three years - there were only two major ones prior
> to that. This is a net positive for a wide variety of reasons but I don’t
> think it’s created much of an impact in terms of pulling down transit
> prices. There are a few reasons for this, but primarily because that growth
> hasn’t really displaced transit demand (at least in my view) and has really
> been more about a relatively stable set of IX participants creating more
> resiliency and driving other performance improvements in that leg of the
> peering ecosystem.
> >>>
> >>> Dave Cohen
> >>> craetdave at gmail.com
> >>>
> >>> > On Oct 14, 2023, at 7:02 PM, Dave Taht via Nnagain <
> nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > This set of trendlines was very interesting. Unfortunately the data
> >>> > stops in 2015. Does anyone have more recent data?
> >>> >
> >>> >
> https://drpeering.net/white-papers/Internet-Transit-Pricing-Historical-And-Projected.php
> >>> >
> >>> > I believe a gbit circuit that an ISP can resell still runs at about
> >>> > $900 - $1.4k (?) in the usa? How about elsewhere?
> >>> >
> >>> > ...
> >>> >
> >>> > I am under the impression that many IXPs remain very successful,
> >>> > states without them suffer, and I also find the concept of doing
> micro
> >>> > IXPs at the city level, appealing, and now achievable with cheap
> gear.
> >>> > Finer grained cross connects between telco and ISP and IXP would
> lower
> >>> > latencies across town quite hugely...
> >>> >
> >>> > PS I hear ARIN is planning on dropping the price for, and bundling 3
> >>> > BGP AS numbers at a time, as of the end of this year, also.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > Oct 30:
> https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
> >>> > Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
> >>> > _______________________________________________
> >>> > Nnagain mailing list
> >>> > Nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net
> >>> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Nnagain mailing list
> >>> Nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net
> >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Nnagain mailing list
> >> Nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net
> >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Oct 30:
> https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
> > Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
> > _______________________________________________
> > Nnagain mailing list
> > Nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net
> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
> _______________________________________________
> LibreQoS mailing list
> LibreQoS at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/libreqos/attachments/20231018/96c7ec08/attachment-0001.html>