Haven't tried it, but take a look at BBHN->ticket:55. If the issue is in hardware like we believe it is than dd-wrt could have the same issue so you may have to work around that.  Otherwise it should be doable .

Is not that the purpose of the "olsr-topology-view" programme under the Software Downloads page? Or am I missing something there.

In my quest to acquire all of the city's WRT54GS's, I've also picked up a fair number of other Linksys routers that are not BBHN capable, but are capable of running DD-WRT (Open-wrt's commercial cousin). I've used WRT54G V8's for AP's connected to mesh nodes, as bridges and repeaters to get an internet connection to a mesh node, and a variety of other strange things. My usual drop-box is now a WRT54GS and G V8 strapped together into a mesh node/wifi AP combination.

Moving up to Ubiquiti, I'm stockpiling Nanostation M2's 'cuz they're so easy to work with. I'd like to graduate to a rocket or 3 with sector antennas on a repeater site.

Has anyone experimented with DD-WRT as a managed switch, setting up the VLANs to utlilize the DtD linking in BBHN V3? I'm about to spend some time trying, but if there's a land mine or two in the idea, I'd sure appreciate the heads-up.

Thx.

Hey Guys,

    Has anyone though of (or know of) an application that could go from NODE to NODE, test and follow each link it discovers and record the links and signal strengths? I am picturing software that could map a MESH and maybe also report on signal strengths of the links. This would help identify to a MESH group. what NODES and applications exist and where the weak links are. Right now it can be done manually but having a application do it would be slick. Just an idea. 

Thanks,

Paul

WB6IWT

Greetings everyone

Has anyone tested the difference between CAT 5 and CAT 6, relative to copying other node signals?

I have two Linksys WRT54G routers configured for Mesh; two Ubiquiti Nano's; and a Ubiquiti Air Grid high gain antenna and parabolic reflector assembly. While working with each one of these, one at a time, I find no hint of another mesh node to connect to – over the last four or five weeks wealth configuring these routers for myself, and my brother-in-law.

Currently I am using a CAT 5 crossover cable, and find no signals I could identify onany of the routers, at least no signals with the broadband-Hamnet SSID. I see no call signs either. I see plenty of signals / SSID's when I look at Wi-Fi scan, but no sign of anything I can connect to mesh wise. When I look at OLSR, I see on my own mesh nodes as being available.

I have CAT 6 STP and double shielded cable coming in a day or two and I will test the two. I wish I had a TDR available to check the signal-to-noise ratio as I change the cables…

Any opinions, or experience that I might glean from?

73

KW7B, Rick

Of course, my argument is that you  should not have to "outsmart" an OS. 

The best  version of Windows was 3.31 Windows for Workgroups.  (I might still have a set of 8 floppies).

Windows 8.1 is rather special.  It attempts to make a computer with a big screen (non-touch) appear and work like a small touch-screen  phone.

I don't like it.  (I don't own a small touch-screen phone, and don't want one).

Unfortunately, much of the software I use works only on Windows.

73,  Graham,ZL3GSL

The current release of BBHN to be found in the firmware directory is 1.1.2.

On the home page I read, "The bug in release BBHN 1.1.2 announced in August causes OLSR Secure to crash. It is more widespread than originally thought"

and,

"we have posted a BBHN experimental version 3.0.0 with the Secure module removed.

...

We encourage you to move to this interim release as we continue our troubleshooting."

Question - are there any released / stable versions of BBHN firmware?  As far as I can tell there's nothing but  "Not recommended for use" (1.0.0), "crashes" (1.1.2) and beta versions (3.0.0b02).

Mark K5LXP

Albuquerque, NM

Like it or not, "Passive PoE" is an industry standard term, Cisco has been using the technology since before 802.3af was created. Passive PoE has existed longer.

Plugging a gigabit laptop into the network side of a Passive PoE injector is safe, the injectors split the wire and do not back feed down the network side of the port (unless it was poorly made but I've NEVER seen that ever)

Plugging anything on the POWER side is the same thing as plugging into a wall outlet,  you should be careful (I recommend using a colored tag if you are worried or colorized tape to signify the line is HOT).  This is same concern as wiring up your radio in your car, or a tnc, don't plug the power cable in the wrong place.

That said I've plugged the injector HOT/Powered side into gigabit switches accidentally and not fried anything yet, I sure would not recommend doing it regularly but it's not a guaranteed death sentence either.

Sometimes you can outsmart windows in this regard by plugging the 54G and the PC into a switch, or even the back side of another 54G.   Turn off DHCP and configure your network connection appropriately on the PC.  

Anyone who wants to get in over the air can just get their own "real" mesh node a lot more easily than they can hack into our system. 

Or simply passively monitor traffic by any one of a number of easy methods. 

Let's face it, we're not "secure" in any real sense on the RF side.

Of course, we do want to fix any software holes, be they "security" related or not.

I wish people would quit calling this stuff "POE."  POE is a standard that is "safe" in that it handshakes before sending the voltage.  

If you plug a standard gigabit ethernet device into one of these bogus "POE" cables, you'll smoke the device.   Gigabit ethernet uses all 8 wires in the CAT5 cable.  Gigabit ethernet is getting a lot more common in laptops, desktops, and other devices. 

In 3.0.0 beta we are changing our version numbering scheme to make this easier for everyone.

The -v1,-v2,-v3 you are in the default SSID is the protocol version, nodes need to speak the same protocol version to be compatible.

Just renaming the SSID won't work, and will just cause confusion.  To date we didn't do a good job making it easy to know what versions are compatible.

Starting with 3.0.0 the version scheme will be that the first digit is the protocol version. This means 3.anything will talk to any other 3.anything.

Thanks Andre.
Looks very useful!  In my testing, it doesn't seem to exit cleanly in all cases (sometimes a power cycle to get it back).

I also added a nice change to the config/system file to run this when the reset button is pressed for 1-2 secs.  Great for "in-the-field work".

Darryl

It hasn't been announced yet to the masses.  It’s not considered secret, just experimental.

What it does:
1) It turns off OLSR and disconnects from mesh mode (you need to be DIRECTLY connected to the Ethernet port when you run it)
2) It switches the wifi interface into a listen only mode
3) It updates the LED's to show the receive signal strength (See signal levels chart below)
4) It outputs to the console the received signal strength at a rapid rate so you can aim the antenna.

Usage Instructions:
Only run this on one side of the link at a time, the other side needs to be in normal mode for the beacon packets to be sent.

1) Make sure your node is configured as a mesh node first (the script makes some assumptions about operations interfaces so make sure the node has already been setup and is in config=mesh  mode)
2) Log onto the node you wish to aim via Telnet or SSH
3) type: aimer BroadbandHamnet-20-v3 (or whatever SSID you use)
4) Aim  your antenna
5) cntrl + c to stop the script

LED=received signal strength
4=-45 dBm   Top GREEN led
3=-55 dBm 
2=-65 dBm 
1=-75 dBm   Bottom RED led (anything lower than -75 will not illuminate the LED's)

Andre, K6AH

I saw on this forum someone ask a question regarding nodes that didn't see each other.  The problem was resolved by changing back the SSIDs so they match (I'm assuming they were both running the same version of the firmware).

I notice that when installing different firmware versions on a node that the SSID changes. If the SSIDs are changed so that they match on 2 nodes running different versions of the firmware, will the nodes mesh and function normally? i.e. are nodes of different versions of firmware intended to function together if given the same SSID?

I have two scripts now to support vtund.
1) installs vtund server.
2) installs vtund client.

I do have to stop the firewall on the server to allow connections to occur.
Any suggestions on how to determine which firewall rule is blocking the vtund packets?

Also, if anyone is running vtund SERVER with multiple client connections (I suppose the dev team is doing this), can you share your config files on how you did this (ie.  tun0, tun1, tun2, etc)?