nonostante l' mtu sia settato a 1280 ( quello dei pc con iperf ) la cpu della pico schizzava uguale, ho disabilitato la frammentazione su batman-adv la banda ora resta piu' o meno uguale ma la cpu non schizza piu'...
perche' batman frammenta anche se non dovrebbe essere necessario? ( wireshark dice che i pacchetti che escono dalla mia macchina sono ~700byte e l'mtu e' settato a 1280) l' interfaccia tunnel che ha nome nnx-adv ha l'mtu settato a 1400 mentre quello del bridge che contiene bat0 e' 1350 bat0 invece riporta 1373 nonostante quello del bridge sia 1350... ( questo credo sia causato dal fatto che ho disabilitato la fragmentation su batman-adv ) root@OpenWrt:~# brctl show bridge name bridge id STP enabled interfaces br-clients 8000.7aa872dfafbe no bat0 root@OpenWrt:~# ip a s 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet 127.0.0.1/8 brd 127.255.255.255 scope host lo inet6 ::1/128 scope host valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP qlen 1000 link/ether 00:15:6d:7b:96:7a brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet 192.168.1.21/24 brd 192.168.1.255 scope global eth0 inet6 fe80::215:6dff:fe7b:967a/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever 4: wlan0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1524 qdisc mq state UNKNOWN qlen 1000 link/ether 00:15:6d:7a:96:7a brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet 192.168.1.21/24 brd 192.168.1.255 scope global wlan0 inet6 2001:470:ca42:ee:ab:15:6d7a:967a/64 scope global valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever inet6 fe80::215:6dff:fe7a:967a/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever 5: bat0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1373 qdisc pfifo_fast state UNKNOWN qlen 1000 link/ether 7a:a8:72:df:af:be brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff 7: br-clients: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1350 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN link/ether 7a:a8:72:df:af:be brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet 192.168.167.21/24 brd 192.168.167.255 scope global br-clients inet6 2001:470:ca42:ee:ab:15:6d7b:967a/64 scope global valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever inet6 fe80::78a8:72ff:fedf:afbe/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever 8: nnx-adv: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1400 qdisc pfifo_fast state UNKNOWN qlen 500 link/ether a2:19:0b:84:4f:5e brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet6 fe80::a019:bff:fe84:4f5e/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever Il 03 luglio 2011 16:12, Gioacchino Mazzurco <gmazzurc...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > e' strano.. > > perche' io sto usando ipv6 per fare i test quindi il path mtu > discovery dovrebbe funzionare e in effetti riducendo l'mtu a 1280 e > disabilitando cipher ottengo un misero raddoppio della banda quando va > bene... > > Il 03 luglio 2011 14:37, Darkman <dark...@darkman.it> ha scritto: >> Quello che va meglio :) >> Ce ne saranno una dozzina nel kernel, aggiungili. >> Così, a naso, vista la natura particolare del canale, un algo abbastanza >> tollerante alle perdite/timeout. >> Ma questo solo per capire sa cambia qualcosa o siamo sempre con gli stessi >> valori.. >> >> Il giorno 03 luglio 2011 14:23, Gioacchino Mazzurco <gmazzurc...@gmail.com> >> ha scritto: >>> >>> non so quale usa di default tu quale mi consigli di usare? >>> >>> Il 03 luglio 2011 14:18, Darkman <dark...@darkman.it> ha scritto: >>> > Bene, ora puoi ripetere le prove cambiando l'algoritmo di controllo di >>> > congestione sul client iperf. >>> > Cosa stai usando ora? Reno? >>> > >>> > Il giorno 03 luglio 2011 14:09, Gioacchino Mazzurco >>> > <gmazzurc...@gmail.com> >>> > ha scritto: >>> >> >>> >> altri test fissando la quantita' >>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-62.2 sec 2.00 MBytes 270 Kbits/sec >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-55.3 sec 2.00 MBytes 304 Kbits/sec >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-64.2 sec 2.00 MBytes 261 Kbits/sec >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-58.8 sec 2.00 MBytes 285 Kbits/sec >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-99.6 sec 2.00 MBytes 169 Kbits/sec >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-96.4 sec 2.00 MBytes 174 Kbits/sec >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-89.8 sec 2.00 MBytes 187 Kbits/sec >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-66.4 sec 2.00 MBytes 253 Kbits/sec >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-99.9 sec 2.00 MBytes 161 Kbits/sec >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-88.1 sec 2.00 MBytes 190 Kbits/sec >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Il 03 luglio 2011 13:57, Gioacchino Mazzurco <gmazzurc...@gmail.com> ha >>> >> scritto: >>> >> > senza tinc la configurazione rimane uguale ma il traffico al posto di >>> >> > passare dal tunnel via internet passa solo attraverso i link wireless >>> >> > >>> >> > Il 03 luglio 2011 13:51, Antonio Quartulli <or...@autistici.org> ha >>> >> > scritto: >>> >> >> On dom, lug 03, 2011 at 01:48:37 +0200, Gioacchino Mazzurco wrote: >>> >> >>> il test e' sempre PC( iperf -c ) <-- cavo lan --> Piconstation ( >>> >> >>> btman-adv + tinc )<-- tinc ---> PC( batman-adv + tinc + iperf -s) >>> >> >> >>> >> >> anche senza TINC la configurazione rimane uguale? scusa ma non ho >>> >> >> capito >>> >> >> questo daalle mail precedenti >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >usa un vincolo temporale o quantitativo, sti valori sono troppo >>> >> >>> >deviati.. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> quei test non sono fatti in parallelo sono fatti in modo >>> >> >>> sequenziale >>> >> >>> quindi volta per volta c'e' ne e' attivo solo uno >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Il 03 luglio 2011 13:40, Darkman <dark...@darkman.it> ha scritto: >>> >> >>> > Magari se scegliessi un test "unico" sarebbe anche meglio, >>> >> >>> > usa un vincolo temporale o quantitativo, sti valori sono troppo >>> >> >>> > deviati.. >>> >> >>> > Se non mi dicessi della CPU a palla, guardando sta roba ti direi >>> >> >>> > che >>> >> >>> > è >>> >> >>> > congestione.. >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > Il giorno 03 luglio 2011 13:31, Gioacchino Mazzurco >>> >> >>> > <gmazzurc...@gmail.com> >>> >> >>> > ha scritto: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> altra serie di test >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-18.8 sec 384 KBytes 167 Kbits/sec >>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-17.5 sec 384 KBytes 180 Kbits/sec >>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-20.0 sec 384 KBytes 157 Kbits/sec >>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-21.1 sec 384 KBytes 149 Kbits/sec >>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-23.5 sec 512 KBytes 178 Kbits/sec >>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-32.3 sec 384 KBytes 97.3 Kbits/sec >>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-20.8 sec 384 KBytes 151 Kbits/sec >>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-27.7 sec 256 KBytes 75.8 Kbits/sec >>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-21.8 sec 256 KBytes 96.3 Kbits/sec >>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-14.3 sec 512 KBytes 294 Kbits/sec >>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-14.0 sec 512 KBytes 299 Kbits/sec >>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-37.6 sec 512 KBytes 112 Kbits/sec >>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-18.7 sec 512 KBytes 224 Kbits/sec >>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-21.3 sec 384 KBytes 148 Kbits/sec >>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-17.9 sec 640 KBytes 293 Kbits/sec >>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-24.8 sec 512 KBytes 169 Kbits/sec >>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-23.5 sec 512 KBytes 178 Kbits/sec >>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-16.4 sec 384 KBytes 192 Kbits/sec >>> >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-21.4 sec 384 KBytes 147 Kbits/sec >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> ho spento dnsmasq che non serviva a niente e andiamo di poco ma >>> >> >>> >> meglio >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Il 03 luglio 2011 13:16, Darkman <dark...@darkman.it> ha >>> >> >>> >> scritto: >>> >> >>> >> > Il sintomo è abbastanza chiaro, ma dubito sia colpa della CPU >>> >> >>> >> > o >>> >> >>> >> > meglio, >>> >> >>> >> > secondo me qualcosa >>> >> >>> >> > è stata scritta male, 100Kbps sono davvero ridicoli. A maggior >>> >> >>> >> > ragione >>> >> >>> >> > quando ste cpu hanno anche qualche set dedicato >>> >> >>> >> > alla crittografia simmetrica... >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> > Il giorno 03 luglio 2011 13:04, Gioacchino Mazzurco >>> >> >>> >> > <gmazzurc...@gmail.com> >>> >> >>> >> > ha scritto: >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> ma il problema sembra proprio l'eccessivo utilizzo di cpu per >>> >> >>> >> >> la >>> >> >>> >> >> vpn >>> >> >>> >> >> perche' stando in ssh sulla picostation mentre c'e' traffico >>> >> >>> >> >> che >>> >> >>> >> >> passa >>> >> >>> >> >> sulla vpn diventa completamente unresponsive non sente >>> >> >>> >> >> nemmeno >>> >> >>> >> >> ctrl+c >>> >> >>> >> >> sulla shell... quando il traffico finisce mi esegue tutto >>> >> >>> >> >> quello >>> >> >>> >> >> che >>> >> >>> >> >> gli avevo mandato nel fratempo >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> Il 03 luglio 2011 13:01, Gioacchino Mazzurco >>> >> >>> >> >> <gmazzurc...@gmail.com> ha >>> >> >>> >> >> scritto: >>> >> >>> >> >> >>Hai la possibilità di usare una CPU + potente (tincare dal >>> >> >>> >> >> >> PC)? >>> >> >>> >> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >> > dovrei installarmi anche batman-adv sul pc... >>> >> >>> >> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >> > Il 03 luglio 2011 12:58, Darkman <dark...@darkman.it> ha >>> >> >>> >> >> > scritto: >>> >> >>> >> >> >> E' chiaro che non può essere il tuo upstream, >>> >> >>> >> >> >> ma sei certo che il collo di bottiglia non sia nella >>> >> >>> >> >> >> capacità >>> >> >>> >> >> >> di sta >>> >> >>> >> >> >> rete >>> >> >>> >> >> >> mesh tunnellata? >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Hai provato a lanciare 2 iperf in parallelo? >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Hai la possibilità di usare una CPU + potente (tincare dal >>> >> >>> >> >> >> PC)? >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Il giorno 03 luglio 2011 12:34, Gioacchino Mazzurco >>> >> >>> >> >> >> <gmazzurc...@gmail.com> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> ha scritto: >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> la picostation a e la z sono la stessa picostation... >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> dalla >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> picostation a posso decidere se accendere tinc e quindi >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> far >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> passare >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> traffico mesh su internet oppure se usare solo i link >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> wireless >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> dal computer pocco decidere sia di usare la picostation >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> come >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> gw sia >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> di >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> usare il router adsl >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> le casistiche quindi sono 3 >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> iperf via internet senza tinc >500KB/s >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> iperf via mesh senza tinc ~ 20Kb/s >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> iperf via mesh tunnellata su internet con tinc ~100Kb/s >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> Il 03 luglio 2011 12:27, Darkman <dark...@darkman.it> ha >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> scritto: >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > Fammi capire: >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > - tra le tua pico(A) e quella(Z) con l'adsl ci sono >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > diversi nodi >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > e >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > con >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > iperf >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > hai risultati di 20Kbps (A->Z) in L3 puro ? Mentre se >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > usi >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > tinc va >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > a >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > 100Kbps? >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > - chi sono gli end-point tinc? >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > Il giorno 03 luglio 2011 12:12, Gioacchino Mazzurco >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > <gmazzurc...@gmail.com> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > ha scritto: >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> senza tinc praticamente non c'e' connettivita' ( a >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> volte >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> va ma >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> roba >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> tipo 20k perche' sono un sacco di op alcuni dei quali >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> fanno >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> schifo...) >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> se invece faccio iperf passando per internet senza >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> tinc >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> ottengo >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> risultati sempre sopra i 500KB/s >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Il 03 luglio 2011 12:01, Darkman <dark...@darkman.it> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> ha >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> scritto: >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > Hai gia controllato i valori tra le 2 pico con e >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > senza >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > tinc? >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > Il giorno 03 luglio 2011 11:45, Gioacchino Mazzurco >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > <gmazzurc...@gmail.com> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > ha scritto: >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> iperf -c su computer che usa una picostation come >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> gateway -> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Picostation con tinc <- adsl 8 megabit -> iperf >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> --server su >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> eigenlab.org >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Il 03 luglio 2011 11:33, Darkman >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> <dark...@darkman.it> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> ha >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> scritto: >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > 100kbps mi pare davvero troppo poco anche per >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > quelle >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > cessonanocpu. >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Come li hai ottenuti sti valori? >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Il giorno 03 luglio 2011 11:10, Gioacchino >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Mazzurco >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > <gmazzurc...@gmail.com> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > ha scritto: >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Ciao a tutti! >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Facendo dei test mi sono accorto che le vpn con >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> tinc >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> installato >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> sui >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> nodi ci vanno max a 100k anche se la banda >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> dell'adsl e' >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> molta >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> di >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> piu'... ho cominciato a cercare ed ho letto che >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> la >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> causa >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> e' >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> probabilmente la CPU che non ce la fa a fare >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> encryption >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> decryption >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> piu' velocemente di cosi' >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> leggendo il man di tinc ho trovato questo >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Cipher = cipher (blowfish) >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> The symmetric cipher algorithm used >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> to >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> encrypt >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> UDP >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> packets. Any cipher supported by OpenSSL is >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> recognised. >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Fur†>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> thermore, specifying "none" will >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> turn >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> off >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> packet >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> encryption. It is best to use only those >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> ciphers >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> which >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> support >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> CBC mode. >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> mettendo none dovrebbe essere disabilitata l' >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> encryption e >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> quindi >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> avere piu' banda, il meccanismo degli host con >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> il >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> file con >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> la >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> chiave >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> pubblica continua a funzionare disabilitando la >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> cifratura, >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> e >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> soprattutto bastera' aggiungere quell'opzione li >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> oppure >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> bisogna >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> cambiare altre conf? >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Wireless mailing list >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Wireless@ml.ninux.org >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Wireless mailing list >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Wireless@ml.ninux.org >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Wireless mailing list >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Wireless@ml.ninux.org >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > Wireless mailing list >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > Wireless@ml.ninux.org >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Wireless mailing list >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Wireless@ml.ninux.org >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > Wireless mailing list >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > Wireless@ml.ninux.org >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> Wireless mailing list >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> Wireless@ml.ninux.org >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Wireless mailing list >>> >> >>> >> >> >> Wireless@ml.ninux.org >>> >> >>> >> >> >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> >>> >> >> Wireless mailing list >>> >> >>> >> >> Wireless@ml.ninux.org >>> >> >>> >> >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ >>> >> >>> >> > Wireless mailing list >>> >> >>> >> > Wireless@ml.ninux.org >>> >> >>> >> > http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> >>> >> Wireless mailing list >>> >> >>> >> Wireless@ml.ninux.org >>> >> >>> >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> >> >>> > Wireless mailing list >>> >> >>> > Wireless@ml.ninux.org >>> >> >>> > http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >> >>> Wireless mailing list >>> >> >>> Wireless@ml.ninux.org >>> >> >>> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >> >> >>> >> >> -- >>> >> >> Antonio Quartulli >>> >> >> >>> >> >> ..each of us alone is worth nothing.. >>> >> >> Ernesto "Che" Guevara >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> >> Wireless mailing list >>> >> >> Wireless@ml.ninux.org >>> >> >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> Wireless mailing list >>> >> Wireless@ml.ninux.org >>> >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Wireless mailing list >>> > Wireless@ml.ninux.org >>> > http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wireless mailing list >>> Wireless@ml.ninux.org >>> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@ml.ninux.org >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> > _______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@ml.ninux.org http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless