Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Change OpenWrt Wifi default settings

2015-08-01 Thread N.Leiten
You can also use uci-defaults mechanism for your purpose. Just put script in base-files/etc/uci-defaults and set your preferrable parameters with uci and don't forget to 'exit 0' at the end of script, in elsecase it'll be run every time at boot ruining changes. 2015-07-31 12:08 GMT+03:00 John kerr

[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] dnsmasq: Bump to dnsmasq2.75

2015-08-01 Thread Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
Fixes a 100% cpu usage issue if using dhcp-script. Signed-off-by: Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant --- package/network/services/dnsmasq/Makefile | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/package/network/services/dnsmasq/Makefile b/package/network/services/dnsmasq/Makefile i

[OpenWrt-Devel] RFC: adding 'traceroute6' to busybox / base

2015-08-01 Thread Bastian Bittorf
i build it for ar71xx, and these are the numbers [bytes]: before: 359736 build_dir/target-mips_34kc_musl-1.1.10/busybox-1.23.2/busybox 208071 bin/ar71xx/packages/base/busybox_1.23.2-1_ar71xx.ipk after: 359884 build_dir/target-mips_34kc_musl-1.1.10/busybox-1.23.2/busybox 209115 bin/ar71xx/packages

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] RFC: adding 'traceroute6' to busybox / base

2015-08-01 Thread Sami Olmari
Mine opinion is that if there is IPv4 version per default then IPv6 version should be there too... Whole another thing is to decide what there should be at default installation :) Sami Olmari On Aug 1, 2015 13:54, "Bastian Bittorf" wrote: > i build it for ar71xx, and these are the numbers [bytes

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] RFC: adding 'traceroute6' to busybox / base

2015-08-01 Thread Felix Fietkau
On 2015-08-01 13:04, Bastian Bittorf wrote: > i build it for ar71xx, and these are the numbers [bytes]: > > before: > 359736 build_dir/target-mips_34kc_musl-1.1.10/busybox-1.23.2/busybox > 208071 bin/ar71xx/packages/base/busybox_1.23.2-1_ar71xx.ipk > > after: > 359884 build_dir/target-mips_34kc_m

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [OpenWrt] 2.4Ghz limited to 50mW in DFS-ETSI

2015-08-01 Thread Nicola von Thadden
Hi, my main problem isn't the 17dBm on the lower 5ghz channels. I can happily use a higher channel with DFS and 250mW (which seems to be the hardware limit). My main problem is the DFS implementation which seems to limit 2.4ghz to a lower value: I have two similar regulatory entries: country DF: D