Re: [homenet] ISIS wifi testing

Dave Taht <> Fri, 16 October 2015 14:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2CFA1B2BE5 for <>; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 07:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6E93tLRS6hGg for <>; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 07:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BBE41B2BD7 for <>; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 07:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbzf10 with SMTP id zf10so91275907obb.2 for <>; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 07:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YVND/SdMjx3znd00F3c+kQ/HXmOhEgvf0NEze+4hda0=; b=veUkIJMQl3bHJTbVEJZGvbhZSAh0oZf4PRKKyiG9nKS0SY57gHROIZCjBsCeIrX2TD BAh4BUiaYBXNysaTfwaxUDdYVGZxbrGytsnz35NgIVxkv4/1XK1Y2SmWZk2xGSs4NgmN YKpNIeH43yGQ50MndS6AfoXWnSQHusU8J81oSz5/zJvI0v1lv0O3OcFTSYBUB+f/WO2A 3eupzUWcAR674Ombb2GAHeOBH+FVIERnrxto3kTb13gqfZFDcod1OWq5REOFYlPV+LPc oSj00mvdVXQetbBDV1O1Y375rZykxzF1+7wn8gHFkbeljqAZAsfZMqr/3enUXmLHD6LT FbRw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id v7mr9714740obd.73.1445004446991; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 07:07:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 07:07:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 16:07:26 +0200
Message-ID: <>
From: Dave Taht <>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [homenet] ISIS wifi testing
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:07:29 -0000, dude, has tons of tests, lovely graphs, and so on.The rrul
test was the one intended for 802.11e in the first place. the
rtt_fairness tests are good for testing what happens when routing

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <> wrote:
> Hello.
> I have spent a large chunk of today doing wifi testing with the quagga
> implementation of homenet isis.
> I have been using iperf3 sending 2 megabit/s of UDP:
> iperf3 -l 1400 -R -u -b 10M -t 6000 -c
> The setup is that I set up a WDR4900 with one connection to the Internet
> (not really relevant), and one wired connection to an Ubuntu machine. I then
> set up two additional WDR4900 on my sons tricycle, plus a laptop.
>           +----W1-----+R1
> C1 +----+R3            +
>           +            +
>           +----W0-----+R2+---+C2
> C1-R3, R2-C2, R1-R2 are wired connections.
> W0 is 5GHz radio.
> W1 is 2.4GHz radio.
> I'm running all radios at 10mW.
> If I position the setup just outside the room the R3 is located in, W0 has
> better SNR and lower metric, and is thus used. As I move further away from
> R3, W1 will start to get better SNR compared to W0, as W0 is degrading more
> per physical distance compared to W1.
> Generally I only see very little packet loss as long as at least one of the
> radios has decent radio performance. I can go back and forth between W0 and
> W1 being the best radio with usually just 0-10 packets lost out of 893
> packets per second, usually it's 0-3.
> I spent part of the day doing testing between laptop and a VM on my normal
> laptop, but I just in the past hour discovered that this VM causes packet
> loss. I replaced it with another computer and now all the spurious packet
> loss I was seeing before even using cable, is gone.
> So this is a very simple setup, and it's also loop-free at least in one
> direction, traffic R3->C2 is loop-free either via R2 and R1, whereas R2->C1
> can loop at R1 until R1 has converged its routing table due to a change
> received from R2.
> Also, the above UDP test is only in one direction. How should I record the
> testing, should I have two sessions, one in each direction, and just log the
> results to file, so we see per-second result of packets sent/received and
> packet delay variance (iperf3 will give a value there).
> I mean, from setting up everything and then just powering it up and moving
> it around, it basically "just works". I can move the rig out of coverage,
> it'll connect and start working as soon as the radios are up, and when there
> is a lower SNR radio, it'll move to it without any major packet loss.
> I could for instance make a screen shot video of 10 minutes of testing with
> all the values scrolling, on the screen including the homenet web "bubble"
> diagram in the corner somewhere, and "ip monitor" running so the metrics can
> be seen continously.
> Suggestions for tests greatly appreciated.
> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email:
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list

Dave Täht
Do you want faster, better, wifi?