Re: [homenet] ISIS wifi testing

Chris Elliott <> Fri, 16 October 2015 21:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 697931A1B3C for <>; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:28:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id njPJlVALPhKv for <>; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 722D71A1B2C for <>; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ykdz2 with SMTP id z2so12205444ykd.3 for <>; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:27:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=tKIL2LuCf29CZ+ffFCAyGl2rrVqfnkkJaC1p6dQFyDM=; b=sjqMbxDRe7dWhvxzCg571t1OjIDQ7Xt2sSDqhVmP+KQLGUJO+o574jSsFjVwUFxO0m PlpKfVWWmeC2xOOdsuTzjDuLM9z6uRK49NyJ19V4DXuZ3bas1n+eMIuOJq9NbWKDlqQk nK0TFze3PbJSZTxpbXGLvhf8nP9BJltqV37k8EYcLZUebHgGUsu4Bz1kBr0WJP+woAAf dX1zaVqw2OJDGytvPMGU6y9E2TdiQsBqMzYm0fiJUHdrOdHnmRohQjmKpaIXnFbmV/Es xfmSZjgqSZM7pCUrs3M1kvv574v6AWYRmrUmNz0zhaJ3+ENuPVtUakdzBwTgJoeh4laQ mWyg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id a75mr1087676ywe.312.1445030879469; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:27:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:27:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 17:27:59 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: fPTIfGX0keYVz3_Zc9TX72FMIOM
Message-ID: <>
From: Chris Elliott <>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114e468e42a80b05223f7851
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
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 21:28:02 -0000


Any chance you can repeat the tests using multi and broadcast traffic? May
not be enough clients...


On Friday, October 16, 2015, 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

Chris Elliott
CCIE # 2013

“You and I are mirages that perceive themselves”
--Douglas Hofstadter