You are here

Documentation to Connect Multiple Local Nodes Together

12 posts / 0 new
Last post
KU7PDX
KU7PDX's picture
Documentation to Connect Multiple Local Nodes Together

One problem I always had with the BBHN project was that if I set up four 90-degree sector nodes (on four different frequencies) on the same pole, I didn't have a way to connect them together so they could see each other's associations and advertised services.

After watching the YouTube video on AREDN (https://youtu.be/fkl5Nbnz24Y?t=28m32s) it appears this problem as been resolved and nodes are able to be tied together via ethernet (see the fixed backbone node in the video).

Before I start purchasing equipment though, where can I find detailed documentation on how to accomplish this? Thanks!

73,
Chris Arnesen, KU7PDX

KG6JEI
All it takes for this feature

All it takes for this feature is to plug the lan port cables to each other, for two devices it can be direct for three or more you would use a standard switch  (you would disable dhcp server on all but one node)  or you can  use a smart switch to allow you to 'isolate' the nodes so DHCP can stay enabled and so you can also add a WAN connection if needed.(Make this decision based ono your needs)

Its automatically enabled all the time no additional configuration needed on the node to enable the protocol (other than disabling DHCP if needed and even than with it enabled it still works but any devices you plug in to the network may/will jump between using each of the nodes locally which may cause undesired results)

Once two or more devices share the same wired broadcast domain (all can reach each other as is the case with directly wired to each other or through a switch) they will start sharing details with each other.

This can also be used to jump between RF bands or different network settings (5MHZ deviation RF paths vs 20MHz as an example)

 

KU7PDX
KU7PDX's picture
Great! This makes a lot of

Great! This makes a lot of sense and should definitely help with deployment of mesh nodes. Thank you!

VE3KMV
   Connecting a WRT54G

   Connecting a WRT54G programmed as a mesh node to one or more Ubiquiti mesh nodes via
wired LAN connection doesn't seem to work. The Ubiquiti's are quite happy but the WRT is
not "seen" by any of the others. Our "hub" included Bullet M2, Loco M2 and M5 and Nanobeam M5
connected through an unmanaged switch. DHCP server was only enabled in one node (Bullet) as above.

   I take it (realizing AREDN doesn't support WRT mesh firmware) that this is a known issue,
just curious of the reason. Is the support just missing, or could a managed switch help?

Dave

KG6JEI
Its a configuration issue and

Its a configuration issue and a hardware issue.

AREDN->ticket:55 relates to this which there was an issue that client sessions wouldn't establish leading to hardware that was not able to connect to the mesh network. To my knowledge this is one of the reasons the BBHN team had originally announced EOL on the Linksys hardware (though they have since pulled that and moved it back into an 'actively supported' device)

In response to the issues discovered DTDLink was disabled on all Linksys hardware by default per AREDN->ticket:55,  a manual procedure was created to enable it for those who chose to (http://bloodhound.aredn.org/products/AREDN/wiki/HowTo/Enable%20DTDLINK%20on%20Linksys )

It should be noted however even though one could make it work I would not recommend bringing Linksys devices into a network as it creates weak spots in the network (slower system performance, unstable hardware, lower RF performance, and a lack of active development, and of course because we are not developing it that it will soon fall behind in needed features to maintain a mesh network) that its just not worth the effort.

I believe pretty much all of the networks I have talked to that are serious about the networks have abandoned Linksys gear already because of this issue and others like the hardware going out of band.

KD7MG
KD7MG's picture
I would not recommend

I would not recommend bringing Linksys devices into a network as it creates weak spots in the network (slower system performance, unstable hardware, lower RF performance, and a lack of active development, and of course because we are not developing it that it will soon fall behind in needed features to maintain a mesh network) that its just not worth the effort.

While I understand the limitations of the Linksys platform, I have to say I have yet to find anything easier to extend a mesh from a rooftop node to several offices below than to plop down some WRT's on the desks. Even though wired might be an issue, I certainly hope they can continue to play as wireless neighbors with their Ubiquity cousins.

K5DLQ
K5DLQ's picture
I'm not trying to argue, but

I'm not trying to argue, but can you elaborate on exactly what makes a WRT easier, in that scenario, as opposed to say a Nanostation Loco (as an example)?

 

 

KD7MG
KD7MG's picture
I can think of a few things.

I can think of a few things.

  1. Cost. For temporary, short-haul depolyments like an office, it's not economically feasable to have a grab-'n-go box full of Nanostations that can be sprinkled about where needed, whereas many of already have a basement full of WRT's that can fill such a roll.
  2. For placing in an office, the WRT's onmi antenna would be preferred over the the 60° on the Nano.
  3. For rapid deployment, I would prefer a device without POE. Sometimes with POE the ethernet cable needs to be routed to satify DC requirements putting it in an awkward location for network duties.
  4. The WRT's built-in switch is ready to handle more than just one device, such as multiple PC's, IP cameras, etc.

If/when it's supported, a Picostation would help with point 2, but handsdown a WRT would still be my first choice.

K5DLQ
K5DLQ's picture
Thanks for the reply.  Here

Thanks for the reply.  Here are my observations/thoughts to ponder...

1) re: cost, if you had a basement full of NanoLocos, the cost would be free as well.  The cost of a Loco is around $50 and comes in a weatherproof enclosure and with an antenna.  (the NS M2's are available for around the $60 mark if you look closely).

2) The directional nature of the NS antenna would be pointed at the tower anyway.  Doesn't need to be omni in this scenario.  Plus, the benefit of the MIMO tech in the NS would increase the performance of the link.  So, if you were deployed to a Red Cross shelter (as an example), you have a node on a mast or rooftop outside that connects to the AREDN backbone, and a NS inside pointed at that node.

3) Can you elaborate?   My opinion, is that POE is a much cleaner design, as, you only need one cable to go to the node.  Only one cable to worry about failing, instead of having to run separate power and ethernet up the mast/tower and maintaining two.  (Or more, if you have multiple devices plugged in a WRT switch at the top of a tower).

4) True, however, 10/100 switches are readly available and dirt cheap.  Plus, in the "office"/rapid deploy scenario, you will most likely be deploying a wifi access point (DD-WRT) to provide secured access to the mesh anyway.

I appreciate the discussion!

By the way, the Ubiquiti PicoStation M2 is currently supported by AREDN.

73, K5DLQ - Darryl

K5DLQ
K5DLQ's picture
KD7MG... any feedback on my

KD7MG... any feedback on my #3 question?

 

thanks, Darryl

K5DLQ
K5DLQ's picture
I'm working on some

I'm working on some documentation as we speak regarding this topic... Stay tuned.

 

Darryl - K5DLQ

K5DLQ
K5DLQ's picture
I just added some diagrams to

I just added some diagrams to the Documentation section of the site.

http://www.aredn.org/content/device-device-linking-dtdlink

 

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer