Bonding Alternating

Bonding Alternating

[brian.edmisten]

Before Adding radios to my setup I connected to computers with three NICs each.  I added all three interfaces to the mesh interface bat0 on each.  I then run iperf across it and all the traffic seems to go on one interface.  I run iperf3 with -p 4 so there are multiple streams.  Changing it to bonding does not seem to change the behavior.
batctl o - shows all three interfaces
batctl n - shows three interfaces -This I thought seemed odd as its one neighbor across three links
batctl tg - shows all clients Via one address

If anyone can point me at what to look at next or what might be wrong would help.

I am using BATMAN_V version 2019.4 in kernel 5.4.68.

Re: Bonding Alternating

[Simon Wunderlich]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1504 bytes --]

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 10:09:39 PM CEST brian.edmisten@viasat.com 
wrote:
> Before Adding radios to my setup I connected to computers with three NICs
> each.  I added all three interfaces to the mesh interface bat0 on each.  I
> then run iperf across it and all the traffic seems to go on one interface. 
> I run iperf3 with -p 4 so there are multiple streams.  Changing it to
> bonding does not seem to change the behavior. batctl o - shows all three
> interfaces
> batctl n - shows three interfaces -This I thought seemed odd as its one
> neighbor across three links batctl tg - shows all clients Via one address
> 
> If anyone can point me at what to look at next or what might be wrong would
> help.
> 
> I am using BATMAN_V version 2019.4 in kernel 5.4.68.

Hi Brian,

can you perhaps post the output of those commands?

If bonding works, it would even spread one iperf stream among the multiple 
links. For bonding to work, the TQ values must be on a similar level, 
otherwise it will not be activated.

I haven't really tried bonding with BATMAN V, you may want to try with BATMAN 
IV instead.

Please note that bonding will schedule the packets over the available 
interfaces, but will not perform any reordering on the receiver side. This can 
upset TCP which handles reordering as losses. In experiments with WiFi links, 
I often actually got degraded performance because the queue depths of the WiFi 
links were growing differently, therefore causing reodering ...

Cheers,
      Simon

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Bonding Alternating

[brian.edmisten]

Simon,

Thanks for responding.  We are trying out some different solutions for bonding these radios.  For scenarios BATMAN seems really well suited for the problem but we wanted to test this one and see how much work we need to put into it.  I saw the same behavior with IV but I'll switch back and check on it.  While its up though here is what I am seeing with V.

batctl o
[B.A.T.M.A.N. adv 2019.4, MainIF/MAC: eth0/00:0c:29:c5:d2:da (bat0/de:8b:cc:39:d0:69 BATMAN_V)]
   Originator        last-seen ( throughput)  Nexthop           [outgoingIF]
   00:0c:29:53:f8:c9    0.320s (    10000.0)  00:0c:29:53:f8:dd [      eth2]
   00:0c:29:53:f8:c9    0.320s (    10000.0)  00:0c:29:53:f8:d3 [      eth1]
 * 00:0c:29:53:f8:c9    0.320s (    10000.0)  00:0c:29:53:f8:c9 [      eth0]

batctl n
[B.A.T.M.A.N. adv 2019.4, MainIF/MAC: eth0/00:0c:29:c5:d2:da (bat0/de:8b:cc:39:d0:69 BATMAN_V)]
IF             Neighbor              last-seen
00:0c:29:53:f8:c9    0.436s (    10000.0) [      eth0]
00:0c:29:53:f8:d3    0.340s (    10000.0) [      eth1]
00:0c:29:53:f8:dd    0.116s (    10000.0) [      eth2]

batctl tg
[B.A.T.M.A.N. adv 2019.4, MainIF/MAC: eth0/00:0c:29:c5:d2:da (bat0/de:8b:cc:39:d0:69 BATMAN_V)]
   Client             VID Flags Last ttvn     Via        ttvn  (CRC       )
 * 33:33:00:00:00:02   -1 [....] (  1) 00:0c:29:53:f8:c9 (  2) (0x6b62ac80)
 * 01:00:5e:00:00:01   -1 [....] (  2) 00:0c:29:53:f8:c9 (  2) (0x6b62ac80)
 * 4e:b3:25:58:bd:15   -1 [....] (  1) 00:0c:29:53:f8:c9 (  2) (0x6b62ac80)
 * 33:33:00:00:00:01   -1 [....] (  1) 00:0c:29:53:f8:c9 (  2) (0x6b62ac80)

I do not directly see any of the commands outputting transmit quality  I would expect the three ethernet nics to be the same but it is an assumption.

Here is the same info under IV
batctl o
[B.A.T.M.A.N. adv 2019.4, MainIF/MAC: eth2/00:0c:29:c5:d2:ee (bat0/f2:49:86:e6:ea:aa BATMAN_IV)]
   Originator        last-seen (#/255) Nexthop           [outgoingIF]
 * 00:0c:29:53:f8:d3    0.976s   (255) 00:0c:29:53:f8:d3 [      eth1]
 * 00:0c:29:53:f8:c9    0.944s   (251) 00:0c:29:53:f8:c9 [      eth0]
 * 00:0c:29:53:f8:dd    0.368s   (255) 00:0c:29:53:f8:c9 [      eth0]
   00:0c:29:53:f8:dd    0.368s   (255) 00:0c:29:53:f8:d3 [      eth1]
   00:0c:29:53:f8:dd    0.368s   (252) 00:0c:29:53:f8:dd [      eth2]

batctl n
[B.A.T.M.A.N. adv 2019.4, MainIF/MAC: eth2/00:0c:29:c5:d2:ee (bat0/f2:49:86:e6:ea:aa BATMAN_IV)]
IF             Neighbor              last-seen
         eth0     00:0c:29:53:f8:c9    0.032s
         eth1     00:0c:29:53:f8:d3    0.992s
         eth2     00:0c:29:53:f8:dd    0.384s

batctl tg
[B.A.T.M.A.N. adv 2019.4, MainIF/MAC: eth2/00:0c:29:c5:d2:ee (bat0/f2:49:86:e6:ea:aa BATMAN_IV)]
   Client             VID Flags Last ttvn     Via        ttvn  (CRC       )
 * 33:33:00:00:00:02   -1 [....] (  2) 00:0c:29:53:f8:dd (  3) (0x9339b660)
 * 01:00:5e:00:00:01   -1 [....] (  3) 00:0c:29:53:f8:dd (  3) (0x9339b660)
 * 2a:78:9d:5f:f3:f6   -1 [....] (  1) 00:0c:29:53:f8:dd (  3) (0x9339b660)
 * 33:33:00:00:00:01   -1 [....] (  2) 00:0c:29:53:f8:dd (  3) (0x9339b660)


Thank you again,
Brian

Re: Bonding Alternating

[Simon Wunderlich]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3896 bytes --]

On Friday, September 10, 2021 7:59:54 PM CEST brian.edmisten@viasat.com wrote:
> Simon,
> 
> Thanks for responding.  We are trying out some different solutions for
> bonding these radios.  For scenarios BATMAN seems really well suited for
> the problem but we wanted to test this one and see how much work we need to
> put into it.  I saw the same behavior with IV but I'll switch back and
> check on it.  While its up though here is what I am seeing with V.
> 
> batctl o
> [B.A.T.M.A.N. adv 2019.4, MainIF/MAC: eth0/00:0c:29:c5:d2:da
> (bat0/de:8b:cc:39:d0:69 BATMAN_V)] Originator        last-seen (
> throughput)  Nexthop           [outgoingIF] 00:0c:29:53:f8:c9    0.320s (  
>  10000.0)  00:0c:29:53:f8:dd [      eth2] 00:0c:29:53:f8:c9    0.320s (   
> 10000.0)  00:0c:29:53:f8:d3 [      eth1] * 00:0c:29:53:f8:c9    0.320s (   
> 10000.0)  00:0c:29:53:f8:c9 [      eth0]
> 
> batctl n
> [B.A.T.M.A.N. adv 2019.4, MainIF/MAC: eth0/00:0c:29:c5:d2:da
> (bat0/de:8b:cc:39:d0:69 BATMAN_V)] IF             Neighbor             
> last-seen
> 00:0c:29:53:f8:c9    0.436s (    10000.0) [      eth0]
> 00:0c:29:53:f8:d3    0.340s (    10000.0) [      eth1]
> 00:0c:29:53:f8:dd    0.116s (    10000.0) [      eth2]
> 
> batctl tg
> [B.A.T.M.A.N. adv 2019.4, MainIF/MAC: eth0/00:0c:29:c5:d2:da
> (bat0/de:8b:cc:39:d0:69 BATMAN_V)] Client             VID Flags Last ttvn  
>   Via        ttvn  (CRC       ) * 33:33:00:00:00:02   -1 [....] (  1)
> 00:0c:29:53:f8:c9 (  2) (0x6b62ac80) * 01:00:5e:00:00:01   -1 [....] (  2)
> 00:0c:29:53:f8:c9 (  2) (0x6b62ac80) * 4e:b3:25:58:bd:15   -1 [....] (  1)
> 00:0c:29:53:f8:c9 (  2) (0x6b62ac80) * 33:33:00:00:00:01   -1 [....] (  1)
> 00:0c:29:53:f8:c9 (  2) (0x6b62ac80)
> 
> I do not directly see any of the commands outputting transmit quality  I
> would expect the three ethernet nics to be the same but it is an
> assumption.
> 
> Here is the same info under IV
> batctl o
> [B.A.T.M.A.N. adv 2019.4, MainIF/MAC: eth2/00:0c:29:c5:d2:ee
> (bat0/f2:49:86:e6:ea:aa BATMAN_IV)] Originator        last-seen (#/255)
> Nexthop           [outgoingIF] * 00:0c:29:53:f8:d3    0.976s   (255)
> 00:0c:29:53:f8:d3 [      eth1] * 00:0c:29:53:f8:c9    0.944s   (251)
> 00:0c:29:53:f8:c9 [      eth0] * 00:0c:29:53:f8:dd    0.368s   (255)
> 00:0c:29:53:f8:c9 [      eth0] 00:0c:29:53:f8:dd    0.368s   (255)
> 00:0c:29:53:f8:d3 [      eth1] 00:0c:29:53:f8:dd    0.368s   (252)
> 00:0c:29:53:f8:dd [      eth2]
> 
> batctl n
> [B.A.T.M.A.N. adv 2019.4, MainIF/MAC: eth2/00:0c:29:c5:d2:ee
> (bat0/f2:49:86:e6:ea:aa BATMAN_IV)] IF             Neighbor             
> last-seen
>          eth0     00:0c:29:53:f8:c9    0.032s
>          eth1     00:0c:29:53:f8:d3    0.992s
>          eth2     00:0c:29:53:f8:dd    0.384s
> 
> batctl tg
> [B.A.T.M.A.N. adv 2019.4, MainIF/MAC: eth2/00:0c:29:c5:d2:ee
> (bat0/f2:49:86:e6:ea:aa BATMAN_IV)] Client             VID Flags Last ttvn 
>    Via        ttvn  (CRC       ) * 33:33:00:00:00:02   -1 [....] (  2)
> 00:0c:29:53:f8:dd (  3) (0x9339b660) * 01:00:5e:00:00:01   -1 [....] (  3)
> 00:0c:29:53:f8:dd (  3) (0x9339b660) * 2a:78:9d:5f:f3:f6   -1 [....] (  1)
> 00:0c:29:53:f8:dd (  3) (0x9339b660) * 33:33:00:00:00:01   -1 [....] (  2)
> 00:0c:29:53:f8:dd (  3) (0x9339b660)
> 
> 

Hi Brian,

thank you very much for providing that output. There is only "TQ" (transmit 
quality) in BATMAN IV, BATMAN V uses througput based metric instead (in kbit/
s). For Ethernet, it tries to read the Ethernet speed directl, therefore you 
see those 10000 values.

Anyway, in BATMAN IV the values look close enough (they need to be within 50 
TQ points). Just as sanity check, did you enable bonding? It is disabled by 
default. You can use batctl b 1 to enable it.

Unfortunately there is not really logging code for debugging, so let's try 
checking the settings. If that doesn't work, I could rebuild and verify ...

Cheers, 
      Simon

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

RE: Bonding Alternating

[Edmisten, Brian]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 92 bytes --]

Simon,

I did check again.  batctl bonding responds with enabled.  

Cheers,
Brian Edmisten

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4956 bytes --]

Re: Bonding Alternating

[Simon Wunderlich]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 456 bytes --]

Hi Brian,

hmm, I see. I will try to set up this scenario over the next few days and let 
you know. I haven't used bonding for quite a while now, but I also don't think 
that we had changes in the code which would break it.

Anyway, will test and let you know.

Cheers,
      Simon

On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 6:57:37 PM CEST Edmisten, Brian wrote:
> Simon,
> 
> I did check again.  batctl bonding responds with enabled.
> 
> Cheers,
> Brian Edmisten


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

RE: Bonding Alternating

[Edmisten, Brian]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 775 bytes --]

Simon,

Thank you. I appreciate you looking at this.

Regards,
Brian Edmisten

-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Wunderlich [mailto:sw@simonwunderlich.de] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 12:26 AM
To: b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org; Edmisten, Brian
<Brian.Edmisten@viasat.com>
Subject: Re: Bonding Alternating

Hi Brian,

hmm, I see. I will try to set up this scenario over the next few days and
let you know. I haven't used bonding for quite a while now, but I also don't
think that we had changes in the code which would break it.

Anyway, will test and let you know.

Cheers,
      Simon

On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 6:57:37 PM CEST Edmisten, Brian wrote:
> Simon,
> 
> I did check again.  batctl bonding responds with enabled.
> 
> Cheers,
> Brian Edmisten


[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4956 bytes --]

Re: Bonding Alternating

[Simon Wunderlich]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1773 bytes --]

Hi Brian,

I've checked it out and can confirm your issues. The bonding code as currently 
implemented is trying to use a different router from each routing table towards 
the same originator[1]. However, with 1-hop Ethernet links those routers are 
always the same in all the routing tables. With WiFi that would be a bit 
different (I've commented out the WiFi penalty check), but even then it only 
alternates between two of the three interfaces.

At this point I don't have a straight forward fix for this. Will you use three 
Ethernet devices in your later deployment, or will those be WiFi interfaces? 
Also, would it be useful for you to consider bonding/teams interfaces of the 
Linux kernel to bond the link, and give that to batman-adv?

Cheers,
       Simon

[1] https://www.open-mesh.org/projects/batman-adv/wiki/Network-wide-multi-link-optimization

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 4:58:58 PM CEST Edmisten, Brian wrote:
> Simon,
> 
> Thank you. I appreciate you looking at this.
> 
> Regards,
> Brian Edmisten
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Wunderlich [mailto:sw@simonwunderlich.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 12:26 AM
> To: b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org; Edmisten, Brian
> <Brian.Edmisten@viasat.com>
> Subject: Re: Bonding Alternating
> 
> Hi Brian,
> 
> hmm, I see. I will try to set up this scenario over the next few days and
> let you know. I haven't used bonding for quite a while now, but I also don't
> think that we had changes in the code which would break it.
> 
> Anyway, will test and let you know.
> 
> Cheers,
>       Simon
> 
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 6:57:37 PM CEST Edmisten, Brian wrote:
> > Simon,
> > 
> > I did check again.  batctl bonding responds with enabled.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Brian Edmisten


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

RE: Bonding Alternating

[Edmisten, Brian]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3021 bytes --]

Simon,

The current scenario we are working with we have two different radio systems
that already provide a layer 2 mesh network each.  To the user they look
like two Ethernet interfaces one for one wave form and one for the other.
BATMAN so far is making it more stable in that the convergence of the
network is much faster.  There is an opportunity for 3 different radio
systems, but the third vendor is unconfirmed.  There was an ask to try to
increase bandwidth if the nodes were known to be close together.  We were
trying out BATMAN's bonding features as using it could simplify our setup
and reduce some of the overhead we are getting with the layers or software
we are currently using.

When you say one hop, do you mean one BATMAN hop or something else?  If it
makes a difference my testing was direct but I think the radios will
actually look like there is a switch between the nodes.

Thank you for looking in to this for me.  BATMAN is doing great for our
first use case.

Thank you,
Brian Edmisten

-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Wunderlich [mailto:sw@simonwunderlich.de] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 7:16 AM
To: b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org; Edmisten, Brian
<Brian.Edmisten@viasat.com>
Subject: Re: Bonding Alternating

Hi Brian,

I've checked it out and can confirm your issues. The bonding code as
currently implemented is trying to use a different router from each routing
table towards the same originator[1]. However, with 1-hop Ethernet links
those routers are always the same in all the routing tables. With WiFi that
would be a bit different (I've commented out the WiFi penalty check), but
even then it only alternates between two of the three interfaces.

At this point I don't have a straight forward fix for this. Will you use
three Ethernet devices in your later deployment, or will those be WiFi
interfaces? 
Also, would it be useful for you to consider bonding/teams interfaces of the
Linux kernel to bond the link, and give that to batman-adv?

Cheers,
       Simon

[1]
https://www.open-mesh.org/projects/batman-adv/wiki/Network-wide-multi-link-o
ptimization

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 4:58:58 PM CEST Edmisten, Brian wrote:
> Simon,
> 
> Thank you. I appreciate you looking at this.
> 
> Regards,
> Brian Edmisten
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Wunderlich [mailto:sw@simonwunderlich.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 12:26 AM
> To: b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org; Edmisten, Brian 
> <Brian.Edmisten@viasat.com>
> Subject: Re: Bonding Alternating
> 
> Hi Brian,
> 
> hmm, I see. I will try to set up this scenario over the next few days 
> and let you know. I haven't used bonding for quite a while now, but I 
> also don't think that we had changes in the code which would break it.
> 
> Anyway, will test and let you know.
> 
> Cheers,
>       Simon
> 
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 6:57:37 PM CEST Edmisten, Brian wrote:
> > Simon,
> > 
> > I did check again.  batctl bonding responds with enabled.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Brian Edmisten


[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4956 bytes --]

Re: Bonding Alternating

[Simon Wunderlich]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4313 bytes --]

Hi Brian,

please see inline:

On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 5:41:07 PM CEST Edmisten, Brian wrote:
> Simon,
> 
> The current scenario we are working with we have two different radio systems
> that already provide a layer 2 mesh network each.  To the user they look
> like two Ethernet interfaces one for one wave form and one for the other.
> BATMAN so far is making it more stable in that the convergence of the
> network is much faster.  There is an opportunity for 3 different radio
> systems, but the third vendor is unconfirmed.  There was an ask to try to
> increase bandwidth if the nodes were known to be close together.  We were
> trying out BATMAN's bonding features as using it could simplify our setup
> and reduce some of the overhead we are getting with the layers or software
> we are currently using.

Thank you for elaborating! Are these radios providing the same throughput? One 
thing I noted when doing tests back then is that the slower link will slow 
down the combined link, since it is sending packets in a round robin fashion. 
In other words, with two links, if the slow link has half the throughput of 
the fast link, you will not have any benefit.

> 
> When you say one hop, do you mean one BATMAN hop or something else?  If it
> makes a difference my testing was direct but I think the radios will
> actually look like there is a switch between the nodes.

Whether there is a switch or not doesn't matter to BATMAN. By one hop I meant 
they are directly connected via Layer 2, there is no intermediate BATMAN hop 
acting as a relay.

Since you will be using Ethernet links and not WiFi links, BATMAN will not be 
able to detect that you are actually using radio links, since its only 
checking kernel internal structures (whether the device uses cfg80211 or 
wext). I'm adding a patch to generally treat interfaces like wireless 
interfaces from a routing perspective, this could also make a difference for 
your VM tests.

> 
> Thank you for looking in to this for me.  BATMAN is doing great for our
> first use case.

Great to hear :)

Good luck using it and thank you for your feedback!

Cheers,
      Simon

> 
> Thank you,
> Brian Edmisten
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Wunderlich [mailto:sw@simonwunderlich.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 7:16 AM
> To: b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org; Edmisten, Brian
> <Brian.Edmisten@viasat.com>
> Subject: Re: Bonding Alternating
> 
> Hi Brian,
> 
> I've checked it out and can confirm your issues. The bonding code as
> currently implemented is trying to use a different router from each routing
> table towards the same originator[1]. However, with 1-hop Ethernet links
> those routers are always the same in all the routing tables. With WiFi that
> would be a bit different (I've commented out the WiFi penalty check), but
> even then it only alternates between two of the three interfaces.
> 
> At this point I don't have a straight forward fix for this. Will you use
> three Ethernet devices in your later deployment, or will those be WiFi
> interfaces?
> Also, would it be useful for you to consider bonding/teams interfaces of the
> Linux kernel to bond the link, and give that to batman-adv?
> 
> Cheers,
>        Simon
> 
> [1]
> https://www.open-mesh.org/projects/batman-adv/wiki/Network-wide-multi-link-o
> ptimization
> 
> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 4:58:58 PM CEST Edmisten, Brian wrote:
> > Simon,
> > 
> > Thank you. I appreciate you looking at this.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Brian Edmisten
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Simon Wunderlich [mailto:sw@simonwunderlich.de]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 12:26 AM
> > To: b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org; Edmisten, Brian
> > <Brian.Edmisten@viasat.com>
> > Subject: Re: Bonding Alternating
> > 
> > Hi Brian,
> > 
> > hmm, I see. I will try to set up this scenario over the next few days
> > and let you know. I haven't used bonding for quite a while now, but I
> > also don't think that we had changes in the code which would break it.
> > 
> > Anyway, will test and let you know.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> >       Simon
> > 
> > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 6:57:37 PM CEST Edmisten, Brian wrote:
> > > Simon,
> > > 
> > > I did check again.  batctl bonding responds with enabled.
> > > 
> > > Cheers,
> > > Brian Edmisten


[-- Attachment #1.2: 0001-batman-adv-apply-WiFi-penalty-on-all-interfaces.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1655 bytes --]

From ef45b1f2462ee40843b7607c5342eae4f1595772 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Simon Wunderlich <sw@simonwunderlich.de>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 09:51:11 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] batman-adv: apply WiFi penalty on all interfaces

Signed-off-by: Simon Wunderlich <sw@simonwunderlich.de>
---
 net/batman-adv/bat_iv_ogm.c | 3 +--
 net/batman-adv/bat_v_ogm.c  | 4 +---
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/batman-adv/bat_iv_ogm.c b/net/batman-adv/bat_iv_ogm.c
index f94f538f..95b045c3 100644
--- a/net/batman-adv/bat_iv_ogm.c
+++ b/net/batman-adv/bat_iv_ogm.c
@@ -1159,8 +1159,7 @@ static bool batadv_iv_ogm_calc_tq(struct batadv_orig_node *orig_node,
 	 * interfaces and other half duplex devices suffer from throughput
 	 * drops as they can't send and receive at the same time.
 	 */
-	if (if_outgoing && if_incoming == if_outgoing &&
-	    batadv_is_wifi_hardif(if_outgoing))
+	if (if_outgoing && if_incoming == if_outgoing)
 		tq_iface_hop_penalty = batadv_hop_penalty(tq_iface_hop_penalty,
 							  bat_priv);
 
diff --git a/net/batman-adv/bat_v_ogm.c b/net/batman-adv/bat_v_ogm.c
index 1d750f3c..17c50e82 100644
--- a/net/batman-adv/bat_v_ogm.c
+++ b/net/batman-adv/bat_v_ogm.c
@@ -492,9 +492,7 @@ static u32 batadv_v_forward_penalty(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv,
 	 * due to the store & forward characteristics of WIFI.
 	 * Very low throughput values are the exception.
 	 */
-	if (throughput > 10 &&
-	    if_incoming == if_outgoing &&
-	    !(if_incoming->bat_v.flags & BATADV_FULL_DUPLEX))
+	if (throughput > 10 && if_incoming == if_outgoing)
 		return throughput / 2;
 
 	/* hop penalty of 255 equals 100% */
-- 
2.30.2


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

RE: Bonding Alternating

[Edmisten, Brian]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4759 bytes --]

Simon,

Thanks for clearing up the hop information.

The radios are not exactly the same throughput wise, but are similar at
short distance.  One is about 80% of the other.

Regards,
Brian Edmisten

-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Wunderlich [mailto:sw@simonwunderlich.de] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 12:55 AM
To: b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org; Edmisten, Brian
<Brian.Edmisten@viasat.com>
Subject: Re: Bonding Alternating

Hi Brian,

please see inline:

On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 5:41:07 PM CEST Edmisten, Brian wrote:
> Simon,
> 
> The current scenario we are working with we have two different radio 
> systems that already provide a layer 2 mesh network each.  To the user 
> they look like two Ethernet interfaces one for one wave form and one for
the other.
> BATMAN so far is making it more stable in that the convergence of the 
> network is much faster.  There is an opportunity for 3 different radio 
> systems, but the third vendor is unconfirmed.  There was an ask to try 
> to increase bandwidth if the nodes were known to be close together.  
> We were trying out BATMAN's bonding features as using it could 
> simplify our setup and reduce some of the overhead we are getting with 
> the layers or software we are currently using.

Thank you for elaborating! Are these radios providing the same throughput?
One thing I noted when doing tests back then is that the slower link will
slow down the combined link, since it is sending packets in a round robin
fashion. 
In other words, with two links, if the slow link has half the throughput of
the fast link, you will not have any benefit.

> 
> When you say one hop, do you mean one BATMAN hop or something else?  If it
> makes a difference my testing was direct but I think the radios will
> actually look like there is a switch between the nodes.

Whether there is a switch or not doesn't matter to BATMAN. By one hop I
meant 
they are directly connected via Layer 2, there is no intermediate BATMAN hop

acting as a relay.

Since you will be using Ethernet links and not WiFi links, BATMAN will not
be 
able to detect that you are actually using radio links, since its only 
checking kernel internal structures (whether the device uses cfg80211 or 
wext). I'm adding a patch to generally treat interfaces like wireless 
interfaces from a routing perspective, this could also make a difference for

your VM tests.

> 
> Thank you for looking in to this for me.  BATMAN is doing great for our
> first use case.

Great to hear :)

Good luck using it and thank you for your feedback!

Cheers,
      Simon

> 
> Thank you,
> Brian Edmisten
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Wunderlich [mailto:sw@simonwunderlich.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 7:16 AM
> To: b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org; Edmisten, Brian
> <Brian.Edmisten@viasat.com>
> Subject: Re: Bonding Alternating
> 
> Hi Brian,
> 
> I've checked it out and can confirm your issues. The bonding code as
> currently implemented is trying to use a different router from each
routing
> table towards the same originator[1]. However, with 1-hop Ethernet links
> those routers are always the same in all the routing tables. With WiFi
that
> would be a bit different (I've commented out the WiFi penalty check), but
> even then it only alternates between two of the three interfaces.
> 
> At this point I don't have a straight forward fix for this. Will you use
> three Ethernet devices in your later deployment, or will those be WiFi
> interfaces?
> Also, would it be useful for you to consider bonding/teams interfaces of
the
> Linux kernel to bond the link, and give that to batman-adv?
> 
> Cheers,
>        Simon
> 
> [1]
>
https://www.open-mesh.org/projects/batman-adv/wiki/Network-wide-multi-link-o
> ptimization
> 
> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 4:58:58 PM CEST Edmisten, Brian wrote:
> > Simon,
> > 
> > Thank you. I appreciate you looking at this.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Brian Edmisten
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Simon Wunderlich [mailto:sw@simonwunderlich.de]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 12:26 AM
> > To: b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org; Edmisten, Brian
> > <Brian.Edmisten@viasat.com>
> > Subject: Re: Bonding Alternating
> > 
> > Hi Brian,
> > 
> > hmm, I see. I will try to set up this scenario over the next few days
> > and let you know. I haven't used bonding for quite a while now, but I
> > also don't think that we had changes in the code which would break it.
> > 
> > Anyway, will test and let you know.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> >       Simon
> > 
> > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 6:57:37 PM CEST Edmisten, Brian wrote:
> > > Simon,
> > > 
> > > I did check again.  batctl bonding responds with enabled.
> > > 
> > > Cheers,
> > > Brian Edmisten


[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4956 bytes --]