[Commotion-dev] Commotion IP ranges for multiple mesh interfaces?

[miles]

I may just be confusing myself about how to best use OLSR. 

I ran into the problem while setting up a dual band router.  If I use the standard commotion setup, each radio thinks they are attached to the same 100.64 subnet, but they can't view the same hosts.  Olsr will eventually make this work. If I want to force traffic over the backbone, I need set the per interface weight accordingly. 
Right?  
I think this makes serval dependent on the olsrd routing table, which is unfortunate/redundant. 

How do you handle mixed 5ghz and 2 ghz devices today when bridged over Ethernet?  

I was also thinking about segmenting the backbone for security reasons - an open 2.4 ghz mesh, and a  signed & encrypted OLSR mesh for the backbone. That would allow for trusted services like NTP and "secure" routing among backbone nodes. 
So far, I haven't figured out how to partition olsr without quagga and a lot of pain in the middle.   

If splitting the IP space does make sense, how about. 
100.64.0/11 for stock commotion (32 Class Bs = thousands of nodes before collisions are likely. ) 
100.96.0/11 for "backbone" with either a different frequency or different security zone. 
100.127.127.0/17  broken into 8 /23s for point to point  links or very sparse networks (like long haul WAN repeaters). That's only  ~ 7 nodes before there is  a 1% chance of collisions, but 1/2048 is fair odds for an auto discovered private link. It may be  more efficient to require manual IP addressing .  Or even set aside one 10.x space ?


On May 27, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Dan Staples <danstaples at opentechinstitute.org> wrote:

> Hi Miles,
> 
> The way we do IP addressing now is that each node will auto-generate IP
> addresses for its interfaces based on the most significant bytes of the
> device's MAC address. The mesh IP is in the 100.64.0.0/10 range, while
> access point and ethernet interfaces are bridged and give out addresses
> on the 10.0.0.0/8 range. We've often had the scenario where we'll want
> to mesh over the upstream subnet (e.g. meshing over ethernet on a
> switch), but creating multiple, non-overlapping mesh networks with the
> same devices is a new use case for us.
> 
> So in other words, suggestions are welcome! Unless you want to
> pre-provision all the IP addresses on the network, it seems like you'll
> need a new scheme for auto-generating addresses that won't result in
> collisions. Perhaps partitioning the 100.64.0.0/10 space into 3 separate
> subnets might be one solution?
> 
> Dan
> 
> On 05/25/2014 07:55 PM, miles wrote:
>> 
>> I want to create  different meshes for each radio frequency (900,2.4, 5Gzh) This means I need different IP spaces for the ad-hoc networks. 
>> 
>> 
>> As part of the IP renumbering, is there a commotion band plan for IPing multiple meshes? The same thing will pop up when creating point to point links on different channels. 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Commotion-dev mailing list
>> Commotion-dev at lists.chambana.net
>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/commotion-dev
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Dan Staples
> 
> Open Technology Institute
> https://commotionwireless.net
> OpenPGP key: http://disman.tl/pgp.asc
> Fingerprint: 2480 095D 4B16 436F 35AB 7305 F670 74ED BD86 43A9
> _______________________________________________
> Commotion-dev mailing list
> Commotion-dev at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/commotion-dev