With the version 3 patch our network ran into a snag. With a linksys router you can install the upgrade, login over wifi to set it up from the nocall screen and when it reboots it works. With a Bullet after you log in and setup the router from the nocall screen, it reboots but wont work till you cycle the power.  

  Our network consists of many routers owned by a couple of people but located all across 4 subdivisions. This leaves us in a position where we cant upgrade routers without scheduling with the owner of the property to cycle the power. 

  Is it possible to modify the firmware to do a power cycle at reboot?

Thanks

Cory

N7FV

n6kzb, the problems you describe match what I saw with 1.1.2.   I have seen some OLSR crashes on my 3.0.0 network but the watchdog has restarted the nodes as they crashed.

Was the problems you having with the 1.1.2 or 3.0.0?  The 3.0.0 download is a little difficult to find.

Look at the file names of the firmware downloads.  The 3.0.0 files start out bbhn-3.0.0* while the 1.1.2 files start out bbhn-1.1.2*

The 3.0.0 files are in the Experimental Builds link below the the 1.1.2 files in the downloads section.

Clint, AE5CA

I do not belive it's been updated to reflect version 1.1.x and higher only 1.0.x

Node tunnels should not be in the 10.x.x.x range as this would conflict with everything else.  Keep it in the 172.31.x.x space and we can easily know where these are at and you will have my less chance that a future upgrade will cause you issues or that you will cause issues on other networks with conflicts.

I have a few questions regarding the use of vtund:

Is this article still valid for BBHN 1.1.2?    http://www.broadband-hamnet.org/documentation/120-creating-a-tunnel-network.html

Is the 172.31.x.x network only for the vtun interface, or, should that now be a 10.x.x.x network?

Are there plans to build a config page to allow the configuration of vtund server and clients on the backlog?

If not, I was considering creating a /cgi-bin/vpn page to allow for installation and configuration of it.  Is anyone interested in this?

73, K5DLQ - Darryl

Houston/The Woodlands/Magnolia/Conroe TX

Thanks. You kind of confirmed my thoughts. Yes I expect there to be a bit more vertical clutter than horizontal. I will stick with horizontal here for the time being. I might try building something like www.qsl.net/yu1aw/ANT_VHF/quados_antennas.htm and see how they perform. I'm only using Linksys radios at the moment. I'm finding the power fairly low. Currently running a link to another station 2.4km away not quite 100%LQ partly due to some trees in the Fresnel zone. Might keep trying different antennas and see how it changes things. Regards David ZL4DK

Hi -

I have nodes operating in Rio Rancho on a small hill... is anyone out there?

-- John, N9CNM

Setup here is a WRT54GL on the tower in a large PVC junction box with four VRLA batteries charged by a 30 watt panel through a Steca Solsum 6.6c charge controller. Battery capacity is ~30 Ah. It's been up continuously for the past month, but we've had plenty of sun so it hasn't had much of a capacity test. Skies have been heavily overcast this weekend. I'll be surprised if it survives until tomorrow.

The Solsum has a low-voltage disconnect. I'm keeping a close eye on that, though, since a single battery I had out there froze last winter. Remote voltage monitoring would be useful.

Next step here is to add two Nanostation Loco M2 devices on top of the tower. They'll provide some longer distance, sectorized coverage while the WRT54GL will be more local - perhaps with one 24 dBi dish for a particular point-to-point need. I'm still thinking through the added power draw if I LAN connect them to the WRT54GL (another 2x200 mA?). The Loco M2's will be powered over the single Cat5e that I have running to the tower, but I'm using the data side of the cable for the WRT54GL.

Everything is working on the bench right now. Waiting for better tower work weather before putting it up.

As noted please read  the following to understand what it would take: http://www.broadband-hamnet.org/hsmm-mesh-forums/view-postlist/forum-1-general/topic-1113-default-channel-1-why-not-use-channel-0-or-channel-1.html

I'm not sure what other additional information I can give you on the subject for where development stands on the subject.  As noted if someone provides a working patch we can look at adding it in sooner but from a core dev standpoint we are currently focusing on making the hardware work within bands and adding additional hardware (900mhz looks like it is coming up next  depending on beta results)

For those who don't know DD-WRT uses a closed source driver we can not get and even if we did get we can not use. In addition we have no clue if they are actually working with calibration data or just forcing it if they do allow lower frequencies. If they are not making cal data some how than the devices may work close but not at distance.

The only "why not" I can think of is "vertical omni's are cheap" 

When peole ask me I usually suggest "horizontal, or better yet dual(H+V) polarity" for their antenna setup. A sector setup is also  on my recommended items list as it allows you to reduce thenaount of RF hitting a single node.

I do hear a lot of users going with OMNI and I suspect they are  often vertical because the price factor not looking at all the advantages of getting out of the vertical clutter.

My suggestion list:

H+V followed by H and lastly followed by V polarity 

Circular may have advantages but antennas are hard to come by. X polarity also has less antennas and if I understand their polarity correctly seem like they only have an advantage where both H and V have a high noise level and you to be between the two.

Since I haven't seen any discussion on this topic (or maybe I just missed it) I'm wondering if everyone is using vertical and hasn't considered running horizontal. I currently am using a slotted waveguide Omni which radiates horizontal polarization. However I am likely to change to using two or more sector style antennas. I am thinking of continuing with horizontal but am interested in listening to reasons why not.

Regards

David ZL4DK

Since I haven't seen any discussion on this topic (or maybe I just missed it) I'm wondering if everyone is using vertical and hasn't considered running horizontal. I currently am using a slotted waveguide Omni which radiates horizontal polarization. However I am likely to change to using two or more sector style antennas. I am thinking of continuing with horizontal but am interested in listening to reasons why not.

Regards

David ZL4DK

Since I haven't seen any discussion on this topic (or maybe I just missed it) I'm wondering if everyone is using vertical and hasn't considered running horizontal. I currently am using a slotted waveguide Omni which radiates horizontal polarization. However I am likely to change to using two or more sector style antennas. I am thinking of continuing with horizontal but am interested in listening to reasons why not.

Regards

David ZL4DK

I have been using non-standard channels for some time.  It makes a big difference when you don't have to compete with your neighbor, the guy outside on his Iphone, etc.

You mention access to DD-WRT code, when I think you mean their firmware.  There is a big difference.  I wish we had access to the code to see how they implement the extended channels.

If you have access or the defunct Ubiquiti SDK, I'd appreciate an email.

I have done this, and on a Raspberry Pi none-the-less. Check out:

http://www.t3node.com/blog/live-streaming-mp3-audio-with-darkice-and-icecast2-on-raspberry-pi/