Am 06.09.2009 17:11, schrieb Marek Lindner:
I don't understand why you have the feeling the gate0 interface is a problem. As Elektra explained choosing a default gateway by "inserting a default route" is meaningless (in a mesh). If each client should be able to choose its own gateway there is no way around the tunnel mechanism.
Sorry but i had not the right view of the tunneling-interface.
Now, the reason for the tunneling-interface is totaly clear. There is no other solution to route internet-traffic through a specified gatway. The only solution will be to lable a tcp/ip-packet how MPLS does, but that is to fancy.
One question: Will the P2P-Interface (gate0) shows up in a traceroute? The P2P-Interface have a private ip-address 169.x.x.x assigned to it. I use only public ip-addresses and do not want to show a private ip-address in a traceroute.
When using the tunneling interface, the MTU is set to a lower value then 1500 bytes (1431 bytes). B.A.T.M.A.N have in addition to the NAT-Helper set the TCPMSS Flag to something like 1371 bytes (1431 bytes - 20 Bytes of MAC-Address and - 40 Bytes of TCP/IP Header). I found nothing about TCPMSS on my firewall-rules (iptables) in the table "mangle".
Without TCPMSS, packages that transport more then 1371 bytes will be silently dropped in my case.
Now i will give B.A.T.M.A.N a second try and will use the little tricky solution to add two /1 subnets. Thanks to Elektra.
I suggest to use the --policy-routing-script  option to modify the routing tables on the fly.
Currently i have my own policy-routing-script, because B.A.T.M.A.N does not support HOST-Routes xxx.205.12.4/32. But why does B.A.T.M.A.N not fully support Host-Routes? A mash with only Host-Addresses is easier to administrate then complete networks. A second goal is, that the ad-hoc mobile user is free to change his position across the net.
I use only host-addresses to safe ip-addresses.