Hello Simon
Thanks for your input! I did not try that, but I have a Logilink WL0084B adapter which has 150Mps only thus, I could never have a HT40 connection. Don't you agree?
Thanks Richard
On 29 December 2015 at 15:36, Simon Müller simon.f.mueller@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Richard,
have you tried to set all devices to HT20?
Regards, Simon
2015-12-29 13:42 GMT+01:00 no name keinepostnurmuell@gmail.com:
I once again tried some settings and I want to use this message as a bump. I am close to certain, that the RT5370 (rt2800usb) drivers are to blame, but I hope some of you guys have some input for me:
Here is the output from batctl td -x 1 bat0 when my client is being pinged with a hop node in between:
21:24:36.769860 IP 192.168.2.1 > 192.168.2.213: ICMP echo request, id 1326, seq 5, length 64 21:24:36.770399 IP 192.168.2.213 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo reply, id 1326, seq 5, length 64 21:24:37.266371 IP 0.0.0.0.68 > 255.255.255.255.67: BOOTP/DHCP, Request from b2:d5:c7:9e:49:96, length 331 21:24:37.461997 IP6 fe80::c489:38ff:fe52:b84b > fe80::b0d5:c7ff:fe9e:4996 ICMP6 neighbor solicitation, who has fe80::b0d5:c7ff:fe9e:4996, length 72 21:24:37.465750 IP6 fe80::b0d5:c7ff:fe9e:4996 > fe80::c489:38ff:fe52:b84b ICMP6 neighbor advertisement, tgt is fe80::b0d5:c7ff:fe9e:4996, length 64 21:24:37.769275 ARP, Request who-has 192.168.2.213 tell 192.168.2.1 (b2:d5:c7:9e:49:96), length 28 21:24:37.769834 ARP, Reply 192.168.2.213 is-at c6:89:38:52:b8:4b, length 28 21:24:37.770174 IP 192.168.2.1 > 192.168.2.213: ICMP echo request, id 1326, seq 6, length 64 21:24:37.770398 IP 192.168.2.213 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo reply, id 1326, seq 6, length 64 21:24:38.770444 IP 192.168.2.1 > 192.168.2.213: ICMP echo request, id 1326, seq 7, length 64 21:24:38.770959 IP 192.168.2.213 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo reply, id 1326, seq 7, length 64 21:24:39.772064 IP 192.168.2.1 > 192.168.2.213: ICMP echo request, id 1326, seq 8, length 64 21:24:39.772547 IP 192.168.2.213 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo reply, id 1326, seq 8, length 64 21:24:40.774724 IP 192.168.2.1 > 192.168.2.213: ICMP echo request, id 1326, seq 9, length 64 21:24:40.775103 IP 192.168.2.213 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo reply, id 1326, seq 9, length 64 21:24:41.778532 IP 192.168.2.1 > 192.168.2.213: ICMP echo request, id 1326, seq 10, length 64 21:24:41.778937 IP 192.168.2.213 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo reply, id 1326, seq 10, length 64 21:24:42.205531 IP6 fe80::1cbf:71ff:fe42:cc98 > ff02::1:ff9e:4996 ICMP6 neighbor solicitation, who has fe80::b0d5:c7ff:fe9e:4996, length 72 21:24:42.287275 IP6 fe80::b0d5:c7ff:fe9e:4996.16962 > ff02::1.16962: UDP, length 4 21:24:42.456688 IP6 fe80::c489:38ff:fe52:b84b.16962 > fe80::b0d5:c7ff:fe9e:4996.16962: UDP, length 64 21:24:42.457072 IP6 fe80::c489:38ff:fe52:b84b.16962 > fe80::b0d5:c7ff:fe9e:4996.16962: UDP, length 8 21:24:42.771977 ARP, Request who-has 192.168.2.1 tell 192.168.2.213 (c6:89:38:52:b8:4b), length 28 21:24:43.771977 ARP, Request who-has 192.168.2.1 tell 192.168.2.213 (c6:89:38:52:b8:4b), length 28 21:24:43.779838 IP 192.168.2.1 > 192.168.2.213: ICMP echo request, id 1326, seq 12, length 64 21:24:43.780191 IP 192.168.2.213 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo reply, id 1326, seq 12, length 64 21:24:44.771969 ARP, Request who-has 192.168.2.1 tell 192.168.2.213 (c6:89:38:52:b8:4b), length 28 21:24:48.319048 IP 0.0.0.0.68 > 255.255.255.255.67: BOOTP/DHCP, Request from c6:89:38:52:b8:4b, length 332 21:24:51.165017 ARP, Request who-has 192.168.2.1 tell 192.168.2.212 (1e:bf:71:42:cc:98), length 28 21:24:52.165044 ARP, Request who-has 192.168.2.1 tell 192.168.2.212 (1e:bf:71:42:cc:98), length 28 21:24:52.212253 IP6 fe80::b0d5:c7ff:fe9e:4996.16962 > ff02::1.16962: UDP, length 4 21:24:52.456960 IP6 fe80::c489:38ff:fe52:b84b.16962 > fe80::b0d5:c7ff:fe9e:4996.16962: UDP, length 64 21:24:52.457448 IP6 fe80::c489:38ff:fe52:b84b.16962 > fe80::b0d5:c7ff:fe9e:4996.16962: UDP, length 8 21:24:55.421775 ARP, Request who-has 192.168.2.1 tell 192.168.2.213 (c6:89:38:52:b8:4b), length 28 21:24:55.445452 ARP, Reply 192.168.2.1 is-at b2:d5:c7:9e:49:96, length 28 21:24:55.446159 IP 192.168.2.213.44353 > 79.140.41.209.1883: TCP, Flags [...PA.], length 2 21:24:55.780191 IP 192.168.2.1 > 192.168.2.213: ICMP echo request, id 1326, seq 24, length 64 21:24:55.780571 IP 192.168.2.213 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo reply, id 1326, seq 24, length 64 21:24:56.783649 IP 192.168.2.1 > 192.168.2.213: ICMP echo request, id 1326, seq 25, length 64 21:24:56.784025 IP 192.168.2.213 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo reply, id 1326, seq 25, length 64 21:24:57.788219 IP 192.168.2.1 > 192.168.2.213: ICMP echo request, id 1326, seq 26, length 64 21:24:57.788734 IP 192.168.2.213 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo reply, id 1326, seq 26, length 64 21:24:58.788459 IP 192.168.2.1 > 192.168.2.213: ICMP echo request, id 1326, seq 27, length 64 21:24:58.788969 IP 192.168.2.213 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo reply, id 1326, seq 27, length 64 21:24:59.788102 IP 192.168.2.1 > 192.168.2.213: ICMP echo request, id 1326, seq 28, length 64 21:24:59.788613 IP 192.168.2.213 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo reply, id 1326, seq 28, length 64
As you can see, I get a lot of ARP requests, indicating, that my clients are loosing the connection farily often, resulting exactly in the observed behavior. I really would appreciate some help, or even a hinch in some direction what could lead further ...
Has ever someone tried to use 20+ raspberries in a meshed network as nodes and hops?
Thanks Richard
On 28 December 2015 at 23:43, no name keinepostnurmuell@gmail.com wrote:
I once again tried some settings and I want to use this message as a bump. I am close to certain, that the RT5370 (rt2800usb) drivers are to blame, but I hope some of you guys have some input for me:
Here is the output from batctl td -x 1 bat0 when my client is being pinged with a hop node in between:
21:24:36.769860 IP 192.168.2.1 > 192.168.2.213: ICMP echo request, id 1326, seq 5, length 64 21:24:36.770399 IP 192.168.2.213 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo reply, id 1326, seq 5, length 64 21:24:37.266371 IP 0.0.0.0.68 > 255.255.255.255.67: BOOTP/DHCP, Request from b2:d5:c7:9e:49:96, length 331 21:24:37.461997 IP6 fe80::c489:38ff:fe52:b84b > fe80::b0d5:c7ff:fe9e:4996 ICMP6 neighbor solicitation, who has fe80::b0d5:c7ff:fe9e:4996, length 72 21:24:37.465750 IP6 fe80::b0d5:c7ff:fe9e:4996 > fe80::c489:38ff:fe52:b84b ICMP6 neighbor advertisement, tgt is fe80::b0d5:c7ff:fe9e:4996, length 64 21:24:37.769275 ARP, Request who-has 192.168.2.213 tell 192.168.2.1 (b2:d5:c7:9e:49:96), length 28 21:24:37.769834 ARP, Reply 192.168.2.213 is-at c6:89:38:52:b8:4b, length 28 21:24:37.770174 IP 192.168.2.1 > 192.168.2.213: ICMP echo request, id 1326, seq 6, length 64 21:24:37.770398 IP 192.168.2.213 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo reply, id 1326, seq 6, length 64 21:24:38.770444 IP 192.168.2.1 > 192.168.2.213: ICMP echo request, id 1326, seq 7, length 64 21:24:38.770959 IP 192.168.2.213 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo reply, id 1326, seq 7, length 64 21:24:39.772064 IP 192.168.2.1 > 192.168.2.213: ICMP echo request, id 1326, seq 8, length 64 21:24:39.772547 IP 192.168.2.213 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo reply, id 1326, seq 8, length 64 21:24:40.774724 IP 192.168.2.1 > 192.168.2.213: ICMP echo request, id 1326, seq 9, length 64 21:24:40.775103 IP 192.168.2.213 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo reply, id 1326, seq 9, length 64 21:24:41.778532 IP 192.168.2.1 > 192.168.2.213: ICMP echo request, id 1326, seq 10, length 64 21:24:41.778937 IP 192.168.2.213 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo reply, id 1326, seq 10, length 64 21:24:42.205531 IP6 fe80::1cbf:71ff:fe42:cc98 > ff02::1:ff9e:4996 ICMP6 neighbor solicitation, who has fe80::b0d5:c7ff:fe9e:4996, length 72 21:24:42.287275 IP6 fe80::b0d5:c7ff:fe9e:4996.16962 > ff02::1.16962: UDP, length 4 21:24:42.456688 IP6 fe80::c489:38ff:fe52:b84b.16962 > fe80::b0d5:c7ff:fe9e:4996.16962: UDP, length 64 21:24:42.457072 IP6 fe80::c489:38ff:fe52:b84b.16962 > fe80::b0d5:c7ff:fe9e:4996.16962: UDP, length 8 21:24:42.771977 ARP, Request who-has 192.168.2.1 tell 192.168.2.213 (c6:89:38:52:b8:4b), length 28 21:24:43.771977 ARP, Request who-has 192.168.2.1 tell 192.168.2.213 (c6:89:38:52:b8:4b), length 28 21:24:43.779838 IP 192.168.2.1 > 192.168.2.213: ICMP echo request, id 1326, seq 12, length 64 21:24:43.780191 IP 192.168.2.213 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo reply, id 1326, seq 12, length 64 21:24:44.771969 ARP, Request who-has 192.168.2.1 tell 192.168.2.213 (c6:89:38:52:b8:4b), length 28 21:24:48.319048 IP 0.0.0.0.68 > 255.255.255.255.67: BOOTP/DHCP, Request from c6:89:38:52:b8:4b, length 332 21:24:51.165017 ARP, Request who-has 192.168.2.1 tell 192.168.2.212 (1e:bf:71:42:cc:98), length 28 21:24:52.165044 ARP, Request who-has 192.168.2.1 tell 192.168.2.212 (1e:bf:71:42:cc:98), length 28 21:24:52.212253 IP6 fe80::b0d5:c7ff:fe9e:4996.16962 > ff02::1.16962: UDP, length 4 21:24:52.456960 IP6 fe80::c489:38ff:fe52:b84b.16962 > fe80::b0d5:c7ff:fe9e:4996.16962: UDP, length 64 21:24:52.457448 IP6 fe80::c489:38ff:fe52:b84b.16962 > fe80::b0d5:c7ff:fe9e:4996.16962: UDP, length 8 21:24:55.421775 ARP, Request who-has 192.168.2.1 tell 192.168.2.213 (c6:89:38:52:b8:4b), length 28 21:24:55.445452 ARP, Reply 192.168.2.1 is-at b2:d5:c7:9e:49:96, length 28 21:24:55.446159 IP 192.168.2.213.44353 > 79.140.41.209.1883: TCP, Flags [...PA.], length 2 21:24:55.780191 IP 192.168.2.1 > 192.168.2.213: ICMP echo request, id 1326, seq 24, length 64 21:24:55.780571 IP 192.168.2.213 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo reply, id 1326, seq 24, length 64 21:24:56.783649 IP 192.168.2.1 > 192.168.2.213: ICMP echo request, id 1326, seq 25, length 64 21:24:56.784025 IP 192.168.2.213 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo reply, id 1326, seq 25, length 64 21:24:57.788219 IP 192.168.2.1 > 192.168.2.213: ICMP echo request, id 1326, seq 26, length 64 21:24:57.788734 IP 192.168.2.213 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo reply, id 1326, seq 26, length 64 21:24:58.788459 IP 192.168.2.1 > 192.168.2.213: ICMP echo request, id 1326, seq 27, length 64 21:24:58.788969 IP 192.168.2.213 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo reply, id 1326, seq 27, length 64 21:24:59.788102 IP 192.168.2.1 > 192.168.2.213: ICMP echo request, id 1326, seq 28, length 64 21:24:59.788613 IP 192.168.2.213 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo reply, id 1326, seq 28, length 64
As you can see, I get a lot of ARP requests, indicating, that my clients are loosing the connection farily often, resulting exactly in the observed behavior. I really would appreciate some help, or even a hinch in some direction what could lead further ...
Has ever someone tried to use 20+ raspberries in a meshed network as nodes and hops?
Thanks Richard
On 21 December 2015 at 16:32, b.a.t.m.a.n-owner@lists.open-mesh.org wrote:
Message rejected by filter rule match
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: no name keinepostnurmuell@gmail.com To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org Cc: Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 16:32:36 +0100 Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Super high package loss and weak connection Right now I am working on a new set of measurements with the basis as follows:
Raspberry Pi b+ with a LOGILINK WL0084B USB Stick on Jessie with Kernel 4.1.13+, batman2015-0
I tested:
Batman + Ad-Hoc Batman + 802.11s only 802.11s
against each other. This lead to the following results:
All of the above configurations show basically the same behaviour: When pinging, the reply times from directly connected nodes are really stable (1-4ms, depends on the range). When pinging via one hop in between, the network seems to take some breaks. A burst of pings (5-10) are replied pretty accurate, but always followed by a really long break of about 2-3 seconds
The problem is less intense when using the batman configurations (->actually does rout better (: ).
Facing this results I think I might be staring at a driver's issue, but still wanted to see if anyone here can help me with ideas.
Thanks everyone for the time and help!
Richard
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sven Eckelmann sven@narfation.org Date: 18 December 2015 at 18:30 Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Super high package loss and weak connection To: no name keinepostnurmuell@gmail.com Cc: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org
On Friday 18 December 2015 18:22:40 no name wrote:
I made a little table were I tried wheezy against jessy and 802.11 as someone suggested earlier in the mailing list to me. I placed the raspberries next to each other on my table and tested through different settings:
ad-hoc+batman-2014.X@debian wheezy: 1m distance .. 200 pings, 0% paket loss, reply time -> (min,avg,max,mdev 1.2ms, 1.8ms, 6.4ms, 0.8ms) ad-hoc+batman-2015.2@debian jessie: 1m distance .. 200 pings, 6% paket loss, reply time -> (min,avg,max,mdev 1.1ms, 170ms, 1400ms, 370ms) 802.11s @debian jessie: 1m distance .. 200 pings, 0% paket loss, reply time -> (min,avg,max,mdev 1.05ms, 1.8ms, 14ms, 1.5ms)
Your "table" is incomplete. adhoc without batman-adv and meshpoint (802.11s without fwding+ttl=1)+batman-adv are missing. You also mixed two different batman-adv versions. Either you use the same batman-adv version everywhere or make sure that the kernel+wifi driver doesn't change. Changing multiple variables between two tests tests make the results more or less useless for comparisons.
Kind regards, Sven