<div dir="ltr"><div><div>These should be the pre-compiled generic OpenWRT images for the Nanostation 5. Likely no need to compile a custom image. You can flash the device and then use opkg to install additional packages like olsrd, flash space permitting.<br><a href="https://downloads.openwrt.org/chaos_calmer/15.05.1/ath25/generic/openwrt-15.05.1-ath25-ubnt5-squashfs.bin" target="_blank">https://downloads.openwrt.org/<wbr>chaos_calmer/15.05.1/ath25/<wbr>generic/openwrt-15.05.1-ath25-<wbr>ubnt5-squashfs.bin</a><br><a href="https://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/ubiquiti/picostation5" target="_blank">https://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/<wbr>ubiquiti/picostation5</a><br><br>I can say with fair certainty it's not possible to compile Commotion to squeeze into 4MB flash.<br><br></div>I would again recommend investigating sources for a pair of Nanostation M5's. Or even the cheaper Nanostation Loco M5's. They appear used on Ebay for ~50$USD/ea from time to time, and it would be the used devices with older generations of firmware lacking all the silly locks against reflashing 3rd party firmware. (Thanks, FCC.)<br><br></div><div>Additionally, the detail about 'spectral efficiency' is also relevant to neighbors in the vicinity where you'd be operating these radios. 5.8GHz wifi channels are extremely precious in crowded areas. Older 802.11a radios will chew up more air time (on a publicly shared channel) transmitting packets than their 802.11n successors.<br><br>For example, I'd be very angry if one of my neighbors turned on such old gear near where I operate 802.11n nodes on 5.8GHz. But, I'm in a dense urban neighborhood.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Finally, do please note this recent hubbub from the FCC that led to manufacturers locking down firmware was precisely over whether to give users the ability to flash firmware that could switch to verboten 5.8GHz channels shared by weather radar. At bare minimum, please be sure not to unwittingly switch the radios to inappropriate channels. The rumor is that the FCC took this action precisely because of a handful of incidents of people flashing routers to DDWRT and cluttering radar bands near airports. (This rumor is disputed.)<br></div><div><br><div><br></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Christopher S. Munz-Michielin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:christopher@ve7alb.ca" target="_blank">christopher@ve7alb.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Looks like it is compatible with OpenWRT so I might give
compiling it myself a go.</p>
<p>Wireless G isn't really a concern - we're only shooting for TCP
throughput of 5-10mbps.</p>
<p>We're an amateur radio group and managed to get these units on
the cheap, the M2 gear is a little outside of our budget :( <br>
</p><div><div class="h5">
<br>
<div>On 9/15/2016 10:32 PM, Ben West wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">The OpenWRT compile target for this device would be
'atheros,' but as Josh mentioned, its 802.11g radio really isn't
worth the effort (besides the limited flash). You'll get better
spectral efficiency with the 802.11n Nano M2.</p>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sep 15, 2016 11:46 PM, "Christopher
S. Munz-Michielin" <<a href="mailto:christopher@ve7alb.ca" target="_blank">christopher@ve7alb.ca</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Thanks for
the reply Josh, Cheers!<br>
<br>
Chris<br>
<br>
<br>
On 15/09/2016 18:39, Josh King wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi Christopher,<br>
<br>
Unfortunately, no, they're not compatible. The wifi
chipset is pretty<br>
old, and I believe they have too little flash storage (4MB
rather than<br>
8MB). Sorry!<br>
<br>
On Thu, 2016-09-15 at 18:33 -0700, Christopher S.
Munz-Michielin wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hey Guys,<br>
<br>
I have a couple of Nanostation5's (NOT the M5) and was
wondering if<br>
they<br>
were compatible with the commotion firmware? If so,
what image would<br>
I use?<br>
<br>
Cheers!<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Commotion-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Commotion-discuss@lists.chambana.net" target="_blank">Commotion-discuss@lists.chamba<wbr>na.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/commotion-discuss" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.chambana.net/mai<wbr>lman/listinfo/commotion-discus<wbr>s</a><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Commotion-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Commotion-discuss@lists.chambana.net" target="_blank">Commotion-discuss@lists.chamba<wbr>na.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/commotion-discuss" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.chambana.net/mai<wbr>lman/listinfo/commotion-discus<wbr>s</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>Ben West<div><a href="mailto:ben@gowasabi.net" target="_blank">ben@gowasabi.net</a><br></div></div></div></div>
</div>