Hello all,

Im fairly new the the mesh world and am having issues with the tunnel setup. I have two routers ones a v2.2 and the other is a v3. After an hour of playing around, an Elmer, and some help from youtube I managed to get ssh going with puttygen. I got the wget script and the bash scripts to run and after a reboot i see the server on one of the routers and the client on another. However when I click on the link it gives me a vpn software needs to be installed page. Did I forget to do somthing on my end?

Thank you for all your help.

KG7ETR

Hello, I have a web server on the network sitting behind a mesh node B with a LAN address of 10.x.x.x (illustration)...

How can I access the web server interface (apache2) from another node ?

Hello All, 

Short story is I have two Linksys routers (54G and 54GS) flashed with HSMM, HamChat and IRC loaded on the 54GS and that is connected to my home lan.  When I setup port forwarding, it doesn't open the ports from the wan link into the mesh.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding what it is supposed to be doing?

Longer story, I have the 54GS assigned an IP on my lan and I can get to the 8080 setup pages and such from my lan.  That works fine.  I can ssh through the lan to get into the box fine.  But, if I try to, for instance use HexChat to open the IRC on the router, I get connection refused and that is even when I enable the port fowarding from wan 6667 to localnode 6667.

I found a workaround of sorts.  If I edit the /etc/config/firewall.user file and add:

    iptables -A input_wan -p tcp --dport 6667 -j ACCEPT

    iptables -A input_wan -p udp -dport 6667 -j ACCEPT

Then bounce the firewall with /etc/init.d/firewall restart, it then works perfectly.  

Now why did I say it's a workaround of sorts?  Because the next time I hit save on the setup screen to add a new advertised service or something, it overwrites the firewall.user file and those changes are lost.  drat!

So, anyone know why the ports don't seem to be opening from the lan through the wan port when I use the port forwarding?  I have not tried setting it up as lan instead of 5 host direct but that might be my next attempt.

73

Lynn - KW4WL

Since the last post here was 2015, I'm not expecting any responses.  Just posting for someone to find if they are looking in the same place as me. 

I'm playing around with a couple of nodes up in the Cumming area.  Have no idea what I might do with them, but they are talking and one has my QSL card linked as a website service.  No fancy antennas as of yet so basically only as good to the road from the house.  Something new to play with anyhow.

If you're in the area, give me a shout.

73,

Lynn - KW4WL

There is a precedence of millions of linux computers, many used in commercial environments, with a wifi card and firmware that is not released by the manufacture. The FCC supports this -- see this reference:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/08/fcc-settlement-requires-tp-link-support-3rd-party-firmware

These Linux devices include the OpenWRT and DD-WRT communities and any linux desktop/server with, e.g. many Qualcomm-Atheros wireless chipsets. While the manufacturer contributed to the open source driver, it is modified and released by the open source community.

See this reference on how linux deals with this: http://wiki.prplfoundation.org/wiki/Complying_with_FCC_rules_on_Wifi

Exerts here (in context that BBHN and AREDN are both based on OpenWRT):

Does this requirement apply to OpenWrt itself?

No, not directly. The FCC regulates devices which produce radio waves. The software, by itself, does not produce radio wave therefore software, open source or not, is not regulated by the FCC. That said, the mechanism for controlling transmission characteristics in order to comply with regulatory requirements could be implemented in software, and in the case of Linux is implemented in software. This mechanism would be considered part of the device for regulatory purposes.

So if it doesn't apply to OpenWrt itself, why is this an issue to OpenWrt?

The growth and quality of OpenWrt, like most open source software, is dependent on the ability of the community to innovate. As part of this, users need to guarantee their modifications work as anticipated. If routers software is locked down completely, there's no way for an individual to install their modified software on their own, personally-purchased router. This lead to a situation where the community can't participate and neutralizes many of the benefits of manufacturers using open source software. This is to say nothing of the fact that users wouldn't be able to use their own devices as they see fit.

Joe AE6XE

These new portable 900mhz mesh networking transceivers are awesome!

They have 1 watt power output. Fractal Antenna. Links to your iOS or Android smartphone. Fits in your shirt pocket. Hardware hackable. SDK available.

I have already modified one with an external SMA antenna connector so I can use a higher gain antenna.  

They are already in use by a ton of people in the Bay Area as well as across the country.

Here is the link: https://gotenna.com/

You can also browse the user coverage map here: https://www.imeshyou.com/

It would be really cool if we could get these devices placed on top of ham radio repeater towers and mountain tops such as Mt Diablo, Mt Hamilton, & Mt Umunhum.

these devices would be an ideal way for non hams to have off-grid / emergency communications.   

This link will direct you to the goTenna Mesh community discussion board where you can read about how people are using and modifying goTenna Mesh devices: https://meshcommunity.gotenna.com/

Use this link to save $20 on any GoTenna purchase:https://www.takable.com/x/BgQPKo

SOLD!

SOLD!