The Linksys does have V3 firmware available, so V3 isn't an issue. And, yes, technically there are ways to link two networks with different protocols, this can present some challenges, though. Basically you'd be managing two separate networks -- the old V3 for the Linksys nodes, and the (currently hypothetical) V4 for the then currently supported nodes. I should note that version changing compatibility of network protocols tends to slow down after the first few versions. We are only now switching over to HTML 5, we were on V4 about 20 years ago. HTTP is still going strong on v 1.1. As far as more traditional routing protocols, there are only 2 versions of RIP ( used in small intranets). I would anticipate the protocol has probably stabilized, and changes to the firmware are going to be enhancements to the interface and bugfixes.

Actually, in the area I am in, I can only use the IC2AT on two of the about a dozen repeaters. That radio has no PL tone. One of the repeaters does not require a PL, the other has a DTMF sequence to temporarily disable the PL requirement.

oops! Dupe Reply... no delete button....

These are what are called SIP to FXS converters, they provide an FXS port to plug a phone into and send the rest via sip to another sip device. 

You should reffer to the manual for more details but generally you MAY be able to dial by IP address but you will usually want a phone server (Asterisk) so you can dial easier, use extensions, have voice mail, etc.

 You only need one voip server in an area and everyone can feed off of it as long as they are on the same mesh network.

Personally I have around 3 dozen WRT54G nodes in various versions and flavors. Six of them brand new WRT54GL routers still in the shrink wrap. I have no plans to dispose of any of them as a result of this End of Support. They are perfectly capable of running the new  3.0.0 firmware and will be capable of connecting to the any firmware released that is still in the v3 version.  

As long as they are still functional, they will be capable of being used for a mesh node. They may not be able to connect to the latest firmware five years from now, but there is nothing stopping them from connecting to another WRT or UBNT running v3 firmware.

According to this website, the Linksys firmware will continue to be available to download and use. There is no one forcing anyone to dump all there equipment and move to the latest and greatest.

One other point, the BBHN team is an all volunteer operation. They are doing this because they believe in this program and are actively working to make this a better and more capable product.  They have spent thousands of their own dollars and countless hours in making BBHN happen.  

The time and resources available to the BBHN team should be focused where it can do the most good. Given those limitations, I personally would rather have them focused on hardware that can support BBHN for the next 10 years rather hardware that is just barely supportable now.  

I'm not really sure what you think we have here in San Diego, it sounds like you think we have this well established network that everyone has been flocking to for years, we don't.

I've seen talk of mesh get thrown out of the room and not even taken seriously with the Linksys gear, it actually did a lot of harm out here, but I personally respect and know how big a platform its been for users since they rolled off the line in 2003/2004. 

I've been searching for a year to find a wrt54g node of my own for my personal lab, so far all my programming and comparing has been off nodes I have borrowed from friends whom were willing to lend them to the cause.

Kinda hard for me to create a network when I can't get the gear gear.

In our case our FIRST MAJOR node just went up for testing Wednesday, at around 5600ft ASL atop Palomar Mountain, on 5.8GHz. We could not done this with 2.4GHz (other gear in the way) and never with Linksys (Wouldn't survive)  yet despite that I've been actively writing code to support the Linksys software (something I haven't seen anyone else step forward and offer in the year I have been with the project)

As for cost, its an illusion that WRT54G's are cheaper, yes they are cheaper when you just buy the node, but after you add in all the items you need (antennas, boxes, heaters, coolers, etc) they quickly become double to triple the cost of a Ubiquiti for deployment cost per node. The lower performance also requires a higher count of nodes to reach the same level of quality (increase the cost again)

I know I'm a bit lucky with what i have, I have RF noise to deal with on 2.4 and 5.8 but that has to be a lot less than the Long Island area (as you mention so many hotspots per square foot)  I would think you would want to help in moving to additional bands (Something the Linksys could never do and has already held back)  We now have 2.4,5.8, and 900mhz and I am working to expand that to even more virgin bands when I have the chance.  Its  part of the equation (again as I mention I'll get a doc up later that better explains it all)  that we could have the programming resource time going to just trying to keep the Linksys devices hobble along or we can let the resources actually do go.

If you look at the contribution of just myself on the YTD its probably around the $50,000 mark between physical expenses and  donated time, so trust me I understand. This doesn't even include everyone else whom has volunteered time to assist over the past year (the biggest surge in support the solution testing in years as far as I can tell). there is a lot of effort involved.

I'm fighting the same issues as you are to train users to the advantages of the hardware (thankfully all I have talked to out here fully understand that Linksys hardware doesn't fit the needs of the county, even though some do still buy them to lab with when they can find them)

The decision wasn't made lightly that I can assure you, it was an in depth analysis and a realization that the Linksys nodes have been a diminishing platform that has served us well, but can't be expected to continue forever, especially with the limited number of volunteers to the project.

KD2CXK, which way are you facing? If you are facing a little south of midtown Manhattan, I'd be willing to give it a try. It almost sounds like you are facing east if you can see Melville. You might also consider upgrading to V3 as this is the current version of software. This would make the SSID end in v3. 73, Mark, N2MH West Orange, NJ, FN20vt

It is always the Mesh Gateway checkbox that determines if you are an internet gateway or not (as long as your running v1.1.0 or higher)   Without that box checked you are not a gateway node. 

the Gateway field under LAN settings actually changes how the node tried to get to the internet itself to route traffic that is sent to it from the LAN, or generated on the node (firmware update requests for example and time sync to an NTP server) 

As noted new software versions do not always mean an incompatibility, only a protocol change means a compatibility issue. 

I have dozens of older FM radios that can connect to nothing but themselves or other older generation radios.

Why? Lack of PL tone, same concept with DCS tones. Or how about Narrow Band FM (2.5khz deviation)

Each of these features is very much like a protocol version change is in BBHN.  We change something in protocol that is no longer compatible. While they all use the low end same modulation (like FM radios) they don't all talk to each other if one is a v1 no tone, one is a v2 tsql, and one is a v3 DCS.  They may all be FM but they are not compatible. Ending support for Linksys would be a lot like a major radio manufacture after announcing Tone SQL saying "no we are not going to go back and rebuild the firmware on your old HT to generate a PL tone for you". 

I'm working on a document to better explain and detail the reasons that went into it, but the overall reason was basically the Linksys devices have been pushed to their limits, have significant hardware flaws, are starting to actually fail in the field, are no longer maintained by our upstream operating system (meaning the work load to keep them in sync will increase massively ).. The Linksys units are bassicalky holding back development where they once advanced it.

The development team is 100% volunteers.  No money is changing hands and no product is being developed the only item developed is the firmware we provide which provides an ability for Amateur Operators to deploy these devices easily where they need to and provide the services they need to their local community where it has not been easily doable before.

We know the Linksys are still in use, and you can keep them in use as long as you want, it's similar to the concept of your home computer, do you expect an old 286 to run the latest version of Windows 8?  It doesn't happen and it can't happen.  

Whatever firmware we end with will as noted in the release remain forever.  If you want you can keep your network at that version forever and still link with those of the same protocol, I still hear of older v0 networks in service.   It's just we can't keep back porting advancements  and keep the systems compatible if the platform isn't proving the resource, or the volunteers, to do it.  

Thanks.  If I understand it right, I disabled the WAN, and left the "Gateway" box under "LAN" (on the setup page) blank. So anything wanting to go thru a gateway can't, as there is none here, thus blocking internet access.

On the status page now:

Of note,  the MESH STATUS page should always be accessible on your WAN port.

You can't see the olsr status page or any other node pages but you should be able to see the mesh status page.

I personally have FOSCAM outdoor cams. Under $100 through www.foscam.us although they have an Amazon store. If you get it direct through FOSCAM, then you get additional warranty, etc.

Reason I got onto these is my buddy got one, then built up a system around his house of about a dozen of them (he is not a ham on mesh...YET :-)  )

They are OK quality, inexpensive, and have good video. Many say "wireless", but they all have a CAT5 connection to configure with, that can be used to tie to a mesh node.

See http://www.broadband-hamnet.org/documentation/96-using-the-mesh.html

If you disable WAN, then a GATEWAY box appears under LAN and you can then set that node to be a gateway between your LAN and the mesh. And with it in this config, it will not be an internet gateway (which can only be done via the WAN port).

I have this exact setup at my place here and from my PC on the LAN, I can peruse the mesh.