<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">I don't get your addressing scheme. Read it as warning. 2nd time now.<div><br></div><div>Please provide interface names, function [olsr, nat] and address/mask.</div><div>And HNA info.</div><div><br></div><div>If there is a driver issue, it should be known and be fixed some time.</div><div><br><div>Teco<br><div><br><div><div>Op 15 feb. 2012, om 19:42 heeft Arjun het volgende geschreven:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Hi Teco,<div>Thanks for your help! I have only one gateway which connects between two subnets. One subnet is 192.168.10.0 and the other subnet is 192.168.1.0. I am now planning to run olsr on wifi devices using the same chipset and the same driver. I hope that will give me better results.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Paul,</div><div>Please keep me posted. I will do likewise.</div><div><br></div><div>best,</div><div>Arjun.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Teco Boot <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:teco@inf-net.nl">teco@inf-net.nl</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><br><div><div>Op 14 feb. 2012, om 15:48 heeft Arjun het volgende geschreven:</div><div class="im">
<br><blockquote type="cite">Hi Paul,<div>My network setup looks as follows:</div><div>Nodes with interfaces running OLSR (<a href="http://192.168.10.0/24" target="_blank">192.168.10.0/24</a>):</div><div>A, B, C</div><div>
<br></div><div>Nodes with interfaces not running OLSR (<a href="http://192.168.1.0/24" target="_blank">192.168.1.0/24</a>):</div>
<div>C, D<br></div></blockquote></div><div>2 nodes with same HNA?</div><div><br></div><div>I suggest the following:</div><div>Allocate a /24 to each node:</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>A: <a href="http://192.168.1.0/24" target="_blank">192.168.1.0/24</a></div>
<div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>B: <a href="http://192.168.2.0/24" target="_blank">192.168.2.0/24</a></div><div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>C: <a href="http://192.168.3.0/24" target="_blank">192.168.3.0/24</a></div>
</div><div>And on MANET interfaces:</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>A: <a href="http://192.168.10.1/24" target="_blank">192.168.10.1/24</a></div><div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>B: <a href="http://192.168.10.2/24" target="_blank">192.168.10.2/24</a></div>
<div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>C: <a href="http://192.168.10.3/24" target="_blank">192.168.10.3/24</a></div></div></div><div>Configure interfaces, olsr config etc.</div><div>Then check IP connectivity on each link (ping). Check with arp, tcpdump etc.</div>
<div>Probably and hopefully it works on your current gear.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="im"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Gateway, announcing HNA4 status:</div><div>C</div><div><br></div><div>NAT notes:</div>
<div>C runs NAT to masquerade packets coming from the mesh and going to the non-OLSR <a href="http://192.168.1.0/24" target="_blank">192.168.1.0/24</a> network.</div></blockquote></div><div>not again :-((</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div>
<br></div><div>Teco</div></font></span><div><div class="h5"><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite">
<div><br></div><div>I am planning to get wifi devices with the atheros chipset and install them on all my nodes and see if OLSR works. Markus suggested that things get easier if I use the same wifi devices for all the olsr nodes. </div>
<div>regards,</div><div>Arjun.</div><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 8:35 PM, RC Loh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rc_loh@yahoo.com.sg" target="_blank">rc_loh@yahoo.com.sg</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style="font-size:14pt;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><div><span>Hi Arjun,</span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span>Is it possible that you provide a simple network diagram on where is your gateway, node D, node C and node A?</span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span>I am also facing some problems in configuring a gateway for my OLSR mesh.</span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span>Probably, I can get some inputs <var></var>from your problem.</span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span>Rdgs,</span></div>
<div><span>Paul</span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><br></div>
<div style="FONT-FAMILY:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;FONT-SIZE:14pt">
<div style="FONT-FAMILY:times new roman,new york,times,serif;FONT-SIZE:12pt">
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial">
<div style="BORDER-BOTTOM:#ccc 1px solid;BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;LINE-HEIGHT:0;MARGIN:5px 0px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;PADDING-RIGHT:0px;min-height:0px;FONT-SIZE:0px;BORDER-TOP:#ccc 1px solid;BORDER-RIGHT:#ccc 1px solid;PADDING-TOP:0px" readonly="">
</div><b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT:bold">From:</span></b> Arjun <<a href="mailto:akarjun@gmail.com" target="_blank">akarjun@gmail.com</a>><br><b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT:bold">To:</span></b> Vigneswaran R <<a href="mailto:vignesh@atc.tcs.com" target="_blank">vignesh@atc.tcs.com</a>> <br>
<b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT:bold">Cc:</span></b> <a href="mailto:olsr-users@lists.olsr.org" target="_blank">olsr-users@lists.olsr.org</a> <br><b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT:bold">Sent:</span></b> Tuesday, 14 February 2012, 5:50<br>
<b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT:bold">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Olsr-users] trouble with NAT and smart gateway<br></font></div><div><div><br>
<div>Hi Vignesh,
<div>I need NAT because node D is constrained to talk only to 192.168.1.2. I therefore masquerade the packets coming in from the mesh to translate their source ip addresses to 192.168.1.2. I think my problem is more to do with congestion of the mesh network due to high bandwidth usage by my application which runs on node A.</div>
<div>Thanks much!</div>
<div>Arjun.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br>
<div>On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 2:32 AM, Vigneswaran R <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:vignesh@atc.tcs.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">vignesh@atc.tcs.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex">
<div>On Saturday 11 February 2012 03:38 AM, Arjun wrote:<br>[...]
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">I have to use the NAT iptables rule on Node C, because Node D (192.168.1.1) can only talk to 192.168.1.2, which is IF2 on Node C. So packets originating from the OLSR mesh must have their source ips masqueraded to 192.168.1.2. Now that I think of it, maybe I can nose around inside the linux box on Node D (which is actually a commercial toy) and see if I can open it up to connect to ip addresses other than 192.168.1.2.</blockquote>
<br></div>I think, NAT can be removed from your setup due to the following reason,<br><br>1. OLSR machines have route to D (and it's network) via C (because of HNA)<br>2. So, the packets originated from OLSR mesh reach C and then forwarded to D.<br>
-- Here, C does simple IP Forwarding (no NATting)<br> -- And the forwarded packets will have the source IP unmodified<br>3. Since D doesn't have route to that source IP, it will send the reply packets to/via the default gateway (which is C, I
believe).<br>4. When C receives this reply packet, it routes it to the proper destination in the OLSR mesh.<br><br><br>Regards,<br>Vignesh
<div><br><br><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>I think the problems I have are most likely due to mobility, because the toy moves reasonably fast, and leaky UDP streams. I will shorten the Hello/TC intervals and see if that helps. Do let me know if any other suggestion comes to mind.</div>
<div>Thanks again!</div>
<div>Arjun.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br>
<div>On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Markus Kittenberger <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Markus.Kittenberger@gmx.at" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Markus.Kittenberger@gmx.at</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex">afair smart-gateway does not do anything useful for your setup,.
<div>as its only for hna announcements of <a href="http://0.0.0.0/0" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">0.0.0.0/0</a> (and useful only if u have multiple nodes announcing this)</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>anyways to simplify things, do not use smartgateway, hna alone is enough!</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>and if possible (to simplify more) also remove the NAT in your testcase, use a static route on your target towards the mesh inestead,..<br><br>or just try (and verify the amount of packetloss of) an udp stream to node C, and not the node behind C,.. (so you can leave away the hna too)</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>if this simplified setup works, you have issues with nat/hna,..</div>
<div>if not, you have problems with mobility (which usually can causes "some" packetloss, and maybe just too much for your udp stream)</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Arjun <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:akarjun@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">akarjun@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex">
<div>However, when I move node B out of range from the gw, i.e. node C, so that it is 2 hops away, which I confirmed from debug output from the txtinfo plugin, it is not able maintain connectivity (tcp and udp streams) with node D</div>
</blockquote></div>
<div>and is it able to maintain conenctivtiy with C?<br>or atleast with A? </div>
<div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex">
<div>and my application on node B breaks down. Are there any settings I am forgetting,</div></blockquote></div>
<div>if (and only if) u are moving out of range fast, u might need shorter hello/tc intervals,..</div>
<div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex">
<div>or is it that UDP data over OLSR is not a good idea.</div></blockquote></div>
<div>as long as u do not expect no packetloss, udp works fine,.. <span><font color="#888888"><br></font></span></div><span><font color="#888888">
<div><br></div>
<div>
<div><br>Markus</div>
<div><br></div></div></font></span></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div><br>
<fieldset></fieldset> <br></blockquote><br></div></div><br>--<br>Olsr-users mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Olsr-users@lists.olsr.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Olsr-users@lists.olsr.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-users" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://lists.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-users</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div><br>-- <br>Olsr-users mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Olsr-users@lists.olsr.org" target="_blank">Olsr-users@lists.olsr.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-users" target="_blank">https://lists.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-users</a><br>
<br></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
-- <br>Olsr-users mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Olsr-users@lists.olsr.org" target="_blank">Olsr-users@lists.olsr.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-users" target="_blank">https://lists.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-users</a></blockquote>
</div></div></div><br></div></blockquote></div><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></body></html>