OK sembra un problema specifico di batman... non so aiutarti. Saverio
Il 03 luglio 2011 16:43, Gioacchino Mazzurco <gmazzurc...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > 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