[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[linrad] Re: Testing MAP65 v0.8
- Subject: [linrad] Re: Testing MAP65 v0.8
- From: Rick Kunath <charter.net; k9ao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:00:42 -0400
Joe Taylor wrote:
Additional information: "ipconfig" on Windows, "ifconfig" on Linux,
report the following IP addresses:
Computer A: 172.16.28.67
Computer B(1): 172.16.28.69
Computer B(2): 192.168.10.13
Computer C(1): 172.16.28.31
Computer C(2): 192.168.10.12
This works fine (but of course, still sends the heavy multicast
traffic through the hub). If I remove this routing instruction and
# route add -net 220.127.116.11 netmask 18.104.22.168 dev eth1
Connections to the Hub are assigned dynamic IP addresses;
I assume these addresses are in the 192.168.1.x range?
No, see above. I was probably wrong to call them dynamic IP addresses.
They are assigned by DHCP, but I believe they are always the same.
I assigned hard-coded addresses 192.168.10.12 and 192.168.10.13 for
the direct inter-machine connection
between B and C.
<End Snip, reordering>
These are likely dynamic, but assigned from the ISP IP pool based on the
MAC address of the NIC requesting the IP. In a lot of cases, though they
are dynamic, they hardly ever change as long as the MAC address of the
NIC remains the same. Many cable ISPs do something similar on dynamic IP
addresses. Though in your case, the actual Internet IP assigned is
unimportant, as long as you get one assigned :) The addresses in the
172.16.0.0 are private addresses as are the 192.168.0.0 addresses.
Why did you use a mask of 22.214.171.124 instead of 240.0.0.0 in your
multicast route statement on the Linux box?
(Your: # route add -net 126.96.36.199 netmask 188.8.131.52 dev eth1 statement.)
What is in /etc/network-scripts/eth(x).route?
Have you considered replacing the hub with a 100 Mbps full-duplex
Ethernet switch? There are many advantages in this over a hub.
Yes. That was my first attempt at a solution. I tried replacing the 10
Mb/s hub with a 10/100 Mb/s switch. The result was the same: when
Computer C was multicasting 16-bit Linrad data at about 0.77 MB/s,
Computer A was essentially unable to use the internet. The switch
apparently did not prevent multicast traffic from reaching A.
This was with a "D-Link 10/100 Desktop Ethernet Switch. I also tried it
with a Linksys model EZXS55W "EtherFast 10/100 5-port Workgroup Switch."
I then tried using both the hub and the switch:
ADSL 10 Mb/s --> Computer A
DSL --> Modem --> Ethernet
Hub --> Ethernet --> Computer_B
Again, no change. This time I checked and confirmed that packets were
arriving at A at the correct rate for them to be the multicast packets
Unfortunately neither of the switches you tested with had the horsepower
(i.e. were managed switches) to control the multicast traffic, though
they will segment the unicast traffic. A managed switch (capable of IGMP
snooping) would handle the multicast traffic also and eliminate the
swamping of machine A.
Do you know if your ADSL modem is doing routing? I would guess it is,
and likely is ignoring the multicast traffic as it probably can't (and
shouldn't) route it to the Internet at large, but I'd check this to make
sure. (It's likely OK, though.) I am curious about this because the IP
addresses you have DHCP'd to your machines from the ADSL modem are in
the private range. So there is network address translation going on
somewhere. How configurable is that ADSL modem?
I can use the 100 Mb/s direct line for many purposes. I can ping
over it in either direction; I can ssh into Linux from Windows; I
can use Cygwin/X (as described above) to display Linux X programs on
the Windows screen.
However, I cannot seem to persuade Windows 2000 Pro to accept
multicast packets over the direct line. When I run Linrad on
computer C and MAP65 on B, the multicast traffic is always received
over the slow line, through the Hub. This uses most of the 10 Mb/s
link's bandwidth, and my wife can't read her email when I'm on the
air. This is NOT GOOD.
Have you set the multicast boundaries on the W2K box? Do you have the
Microsoft w2k Resource Kit installed on the W2k box?
It sounds like the w2k box isn't routing the multicast traffic correctly
to the direct interface, instead using the interface to the hub. Or am I
misunderstanding in that the direct interface is never used for
multicast traffic when 2 interfaces are connected to a machine?reserved
If I unplug the crossover cable from the Windows machine and instead
plug it into a laptop running Win/XP, the laptop receives the
multicast packets without a problem.
But in this case there is but one network interface, only the direct
And is the Linux box then routing Internet traffic over this direct
interface also to the XP machine? Or is there no Internet access over
the direct interface via routing in the Linux box?
What is the current implementation of multicast routing in the Kubuntu
kernel you are running? It needs to be compiled in, I don't know if this
is the case in the version you are running, and then set up.
(PIM-sparse is probably what you want, opt-in for multicasts.)
The simplest thing to do is to use an IGMP aware managed switch and use
one interface per machine, letting the switch sort things out, though
this would require purchasing a managed switch. List price is in the
hundreds of dollars range for low end managed switches, but these are
often available on Ebay for less than a hundred bucks. It might still be
worth thinking about if you decide to use multiple machines and need the
network flexibility and simplicity. # route add -net 184.108.40.206 netmask
220.127.116.11 dev eth1
One other good thing about most managed switches is that they have all
metal cases and are shielded pretty well. If you have a well shielded
case on the Ethernet switch and metal PC cases, using shielded CAT5
cable can reduce radiated emissions from the networking components. I
have found this to be useful on my own setups.
As for number or ports on a switch, you always seem to wind up using
more than you think you will, adding other devices like printers,
radios, wireless APs, and multiple machines, so I always advise going
higher in port count than you think you'll use right away.
Hopefully some of this will be useful.
Rick Kunath, k9ao
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
the mailing list <linrad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <linrad-off@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <linrad-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <linrad-index@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Send administrative queries to <linrad-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>