Hi everyone,
A student who is collaborating with me, Andrei, cc'ed, is carrying out traffic performance analysis in a mesh network (which uses batman-adv) in order to compare the benefits of introducing Simplemux [1]. Basically, simplemux multiplexes small packets in bigger packets and compresses them to reduce overhead. These packets are then sent through a tunnel to another end in the network.
So far, simplemux shows very positive results by creating the tunnel in between two computers connected at each end of a multihop network composed by a chain of 5 nodes.
The idea would be to test the performance benefits of simplemux when the tunnels are created between the mesh nodes instead, so they could aggregate, let's say, all the VoIP packets from different SIP clients calling other SIP clients in the mesh or via the gateway.
The tunnels can be successfully created in OpenWRT, but it fails when assigning the physical interface the tunnel should use. It works when a physical interface is used, i.e. eth0, but fails with br-lan provided it is a virtual interface.
# openvpn --mktun --dev tun0 --user root
# ifconfig tun0 up
# ./simplemux -i tun0 -e br-lan -M N -c 192.168.0.5
I was wondering if anyone in the list could point Andrei in the right direction.
Thank you very much in advance.
carlos
[1] https://github.com/Simplemux/simplemux
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:06:01AM +0100, Carlos Rey-Moreno wrote:
Hi everyone,
A student who is collaborating with me, Andrei, cc'ed, is carrying out traffic performance analysis in a mesh network (which uses batman-adv) in order to compare the benefits of introducing Simplemux [1]. Basically, simplemux multiplexes small packets in bigger packets and compresses them to reduce overhead. These packets are then sent through a tunnel to another end in the network.
So far, simplemux shows very positive results by creating the tunnel in between two computers connected at each end of a multihop network composed by a chain of 5 nodes.
The idea would be to test the performance benefits of simplemux when the tunnels are created between the mesh nodes instead, so they could aggregate, let's say, all the VoIP packets from different SIP clients calling other SIP clients in the mesh or via the gateway.
The tunnels can be successfully created in OpenWRT, but it fails when assigning the physical interface the tunnel should use. It works when a physical interface is used, i.e. eth0, but fails with br-lan provided it is a virtual interface.
# openvpn --mktun --dev tun0 --user root
# ifconfig tun0 up
# ./simplemux -i tun0 -e br-lan -M N -c 192.168.0.5
I was wondering if anyone in the list could point Andrei in the right direction.
Thank you very much in advance.
Dear Carlos,
this looks pretty much about OpenVPN (if I am not wrong). Are you sure you posted it to the right mailing list?
Cheers,
Dear Antonio, we will post it in the OpenVPN mailing list too, but I was hoping that someone in the list had been able to establish tunnels in between batmand-adv nodes using the br-lan interface.
best,
carlos
On 19 December 2016 at 11:10, Antonio Quartulli a@unstable.cc wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:06:01AM +0100, Carlos Rey-Moreno wrote:
Hi everyone,
A student who is collaborating with me, Andrei, cc'ed, is carrying out traffic performance analysis in a mesh network (which uses batman-adv) in order to compare the benefits of introducing Simplemux [1]. Basically, simplemux multiplexes small packets in bigger packets and compresses them to reduce overhead. These packets are then sent through a tunnel to another end in the network.
So far, simplemux shows very positive results by creating the tunnel in between two computers connected at each end of a multihop network composed by a chain of 5 nodes.
The idea would be to test the performance benefits of simplemux when the tunnels are created between the mesh nodes instead, so they could aggregate, let's say, all the VoIP packets from different SIP clients calling other SIP clients in the mesh or via the gateway.
The tunnels can be successfully created in OpenWRT, but it fails when assigning the physical interface the tunnel should use. It works when a physical interface is used, i.e. eth0, but fails with br-lan provided it is a virtual interface.
# openvpn --mktun --dev tun0 --user root
# ifconfig tun0 up
# ./simplemux -i tun0 -e br-lan -M N -c 192.168.0.5
I was wondering if anyone in the list could point Andrei in the right direction.
Thank you very much in advance.
Dear Carlos,
this looks pretty much about OpenVPN (if I am not wrong). Are you sure you posted it to the right mailing list?
Cheers,
-- Antonio Quartulli
On Montag, 19. Dezember 2016 11:55:40 CET Carlos Rey-Moreno wrote:
Dear Antonio, we will post it in the OpenVPN mailing list too, but I was hoping that someone in the list had been able to establish tunnels in between batmand-adv nodes using the br-lan interface.
Sorry, but we don't understand what your question has to do with batman-adv. In your example there is no actual reference to batman-adv. Only simplemux and OpenVPN is shown in the example. We don't know simplemux and cannot tell you why it may not work (is it the problematic tool? Not really clear in your question). The latter is known but seems to be used in L3 mode and therefore useless for bridges and batman-adv.
The tunnels can be successfully created in OpenWRT, but it fails when assigning the physical interface the tunnel should use. It works when a physical interface is used,
So it fails and works at the same time with "physical interface"s? What exactly fails here? Is it batman-adv related? Doesn't look to me like it does.
Kind regards, Sven
b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org
-
Antonio Quartulli -
Carlos Rey-Moreno -
Sven Eckelmann