<enyc>
slh: hrrm ok, I guess I was wondering that because before 21.02 I recall there was some explicit discussion of x/y/z can't be sorted by release but put in point release
<hauke>
wigyori: Hi, which risc-V platform are you currently working on? I want to add support for the Allwinenr D1
hanetzer1 has joined #openwrt-devel
hanetzer has quit [Ping timeout: 480 seconds]
hanetzer2 has joined #openwrt-devel
hanetzer1 has quit [Ping timeout: 480 seconds]
pmelange has left #openwrt-devel [#openwrt-devel]
danitool has joined #openwrt-devel
hanetzer2 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
hanetzer has joined #openwrt-devel
rua has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
rua has joined #openwrt-devel
rua has quit []
rua has joined #openwrt-devel
hanetzer has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
hanetzer has joined #openwrt-devel
rua has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
rua has joined #openwrt-devel
pmelange has joined #openwrt-devel
pmelange has left #openwrt-devel [#openwrt-devel]
minimal has joined #openwrt-devel
<wigyori>
hauke: the sifive ones and the nezha d1
<hauke>
wigyori: did you already start with the D1?
El_Presidente has joined #openwrt-devel
<El_Presidente>
Hello
<wigyori>
hauke: yep
<wigyori>
trying to work out ways how they can be added in one target, but likely it's gonna be two separate targets
<El_Presidente>
Is there a problem with DFS known on ath10k chips? I am running my Fritzbox 4040 in STA+AP mode. If I connect STA to a non DFS 5GHz channel, the AP is reachable. If I connect STA to e.g. Channel 52 or 100 the AP starts but shows channel unknown.
<hauke>
wigyori: where do you have the source code?
<wigyori>
hauke: locally
<wigyori>
until it's looking well enough i don't upload it to staging
Andi_ has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Andi_ has joined #openwrt-devel
goliath has quit [Quit: SIGSEGV]
Tapper has quit [Ping timeout: 480 seconds]
lemoer has quit [Quit: WeeChat 2.8]
ashkan has quit [Ping timeout: 480 seconds]
Tapper has joined #openwrt-devel
goliath has joined #openwrt-devel
ashkan has joined #openwrt-devel
<fda->
slh: rpi4 is greate as it can have more than 1gb ram! with fedora 1gb was to less
<fda->
imho sqm is not needed. even on my crap german internet connection down to 25mbit online games working well even ony "full load"
<fda->
with 10% less speed downloads take hours longer...
<fda->
dangole_: do addnhosts ("Additional hosts files") with dnsmasq work now also? i added sometime an extra jail command to init script
<fda->
locally
lucenera has joined #openwrt-devel
rua has quit [Ping timeout: 480 seconds]
rua has joined #openwrt-devel
rua has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
Andi_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Andi_ has joined #openwrt-devel
<slh>
fda-: I know that the RPi4 mostly fits the bill, just haven't gotten myself to go that route yet... (yes, some unfounded prejudices against USB ethernet, the recent price hike for the 2 GB model doesn't help either)
<Habbie>
usb ethernet?
<Habbie>
oh you mean when you add more interfaces?
<slh>
fda-: that dfrobot baseboard for the cm4 module would be more to my liking, but prices for that are a bit insane (well, not insane, but imho no longer reasonable)
<slh>
Habbie: router --> 2 interfaces needed, while the RPi4 only has one (no, not interested in one-armed routing and exposing a managed switch to the outside)
<Habbie>
yes, clear
<Habbie>
some people have managed to expose the pcie bus
dangole_ has quit [Quit: Leaving]
dangole_ has joined #openwrt-devel
<Habbie>
that said, i personally do not have a usb ethernet prejudice anyway :)
<slh>
the problem is, if I start calculating, an atom board isn't that far out of reach...
<Habbie>
yep, pi + addons adds up
<slh>
especially the more exotic ones (e.g. the dfrobot baseboard)
dangole_ is now known as dangole
Tapper has quit [Ping timeout: 480 seconds]
<dangole>
fda: Additional hosts files with dnsmasq and ujail was fixed by a couple of commits in eraly August. At least I strongly hope so.
aiyion has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
aiyion has joined #openwrt-devel
dangole has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<fda->
slh: i use vlan on raspberry, so i have no limit to 1 "port"
<fda->
for sure i get not 1 gbit on all vlans, but its much better than max 100mbit with rpi3
<Habbie>
that works (even on a pi1, i found out yesterday!) but slh did just mention they do not want one-armed routing or an exposed managed switch
<fda->
vlan should work with most linuix devices
<fda->
(i dont use openwrt on rpi)
<Habbie>
i know some won't do the +4 MTU
<Habbie>
this pi is also not running openwrt
<fda->
if you want to save some bytes mtr, disabled ipv6...
<fda->
mtr=MTU
<Habbie>
huh?
<fda->
headers are bigger than ipv4 ^^
<Habbie>
but disabling ipv6 won't help any v4 packet
<fda->
you could use the bytes you save by using ipv4 for vlan
<Habbie>
that's not how that works, as far as i know
<fda->
yes, you save more by using ipv4
<olmari>
Trying to optimize literal few bytes on ethernet packet does absolutely nothing :)
<fda->
my words
<fda->
so just use vlan
<fda->
after a quick ineternet search: ipv4 base header has 20 bytes, ipv6 40bytes
<fda->
dangole: i have not tested, by i have still my patch enabled
<olmari>
For large file transfers mtu 9000 is better friend, other than that, 1500 vs 1518 w/ vlan on an ethernet interface does indeed exactly nothing... Even the 20 vs 40 in different ipversions does not show on any practical comparison and so on... And if does, something is broken :)
<Habbie>
fda-, this advice does not make sense, sorry
<fda->
which advice?
<Habbie>
that disabling ipv6 helps for MTU problems
<fda->
lol, nobody told this
<Habbie>
then i don't know what you are suggesting :)
<fda->
you dont like vlan because of 4 byte header. i told you to disable ipv6 as ipv4 has smaller headers - both does not make sense
<Habbie>
some network interfaces cannot do the extra 4 headers, is what i said
El_Presidente has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<Habbie>
i really don't care that it uses 4 bytes - as long as it works
<fda->
every can, except windows does ignore vlan tags ^^
<Habbie>
every can?
<fda->
olmari: with MY internet connection ipv4 is indeed faster than ipv6! bandwith and ping
<fda->
google.com ping4=32.1ms , ping6=33.3ms
<fda->
i use for both nat
<olmari>
fda-: do you have native ipv6 from your isp or some stoopid 6to4 or some other tunneling?
<fda->
olmari: native
<fda->
dual stack
<olmari>
Makes no sense, do they route ipv6 through A-hole or something
<Habbie>
v4 and v6 routing rarely follow the exact same path
<fda->
just compare with your internet connection
<olmari>
Habbie: "ofcourse" not, but IP stack version does not affect speed itself