<cransom>
if are using bridges, you won't be using the bridged interface names elsewise in the config. so wlp5s0 won't have a config, no network manager config, not in internalInterfaces/dhcpd/etc
<cransom>
hostapd will probably stay though, that's not ip config, but i've never done hostapd before on my network devices.
<cransom>
otherwise i don't think i see other red flags.
<Church_>
Fair enough. Not sure it matters until I actually get a host capable of being a router it seems... my Intel nuc has better throughout then this machine somehow...
<Church_>
Hmm, anyone have recommendations for a machine?
<q3k>
nearly anything should be able to push 1Gbps these days
<q3k>
what machine are you using that you're having throughput issues with?
<q3k>
that should easily push multiple Gbps, unless you're doing low MTU
<q3k>
how are you measuring low throughput?
<Church_>
Well mind this all over wireless, as I haven't gotten my other three NIC's set up correctly yet. But I'm noticing a ping latency of at least 10ms and depending on the channel up to 2000ms. Will probably run a test via iperf but even loading YouTube up took about 45s to load and brought all my local ssh connections to a latent crawl.
<q3k>
try over ethernet
<q3k>
fairly sure it's a wireless issue
<q3k>
i'll let someone else help you troubleshoot this though, heading to sleep for now
<q3k>
good luck!
<Church_>
Most likely. Night!
<cransom>
i use a nuc with a single nic and a vlan capable switch
<Church_>
cransom: What type of switch are you using? Could probably move to that honestly. Have a few skull canyon nuc's at home, tested out my setup initially on one of them.
<cransom>
it's a juniper ex2200c, which is far above and beyond the minimum. any managed switched nowadays should be sufficient if it says '802.1q' somewhere on it.
aleph- has joined #nixos-on-your-router
<aleph->
And just realized I have a ubiquity AP in storage. Hot diggity. That'll work for wireless with this thing.
makefu has quit [*.net *.split]
makefu has joined #nixos-on-your-router
teozkr_ has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
teozkr_ has joined #nixos-on-your-router
night has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
NightA has joined #nixos-on-your-router
NightA has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
NightA has joined #nixos-on-your-router
e has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Church- has joined #nixos-on-your-router
aleph- has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
edk_ has joined #nixos-on-your-router
<Church->
So here's a question, I've set up a bridge of three NIC's, can I just plop that bridge device down as the interface to use with dhcpd?
<Church->
Still fiddling with getting DHCP and Ethernet going on my router
edk_ is now known as e
<Church->
Bah, nevermind. My arp table just wasn't showing me entries correctly.
name54 has joined #nixos-on-your-router
<name54>
so.... any news?
<Church->
name54: Yeah it's working. Arp table is just messed up so I thought none of my servers had grabbed addresses
<name54>
that's good
<Church->
So yeah all I need is a Poe injector which is on order for my AP and some iptables rules.
<name54>
is this on a raspberry pi?
<name54>
... that's going to go on a rooftop somewhere?
<name54>
;D
<Church->
Nah, little x86 box for my house
<name54>
oh, that's always nice
<name54>
i'm still debating if I should bother using nixos on my x86 router for my house
<name54>
or, maybe better stated... when I can actually take the plunge
<name54>
I like what I see of it so far but...
<name54>
lol
<name54>
I've got baggage (don't we all)
<name54>
you must have a really small x86 if it can take power over ethernet, huh?
<name54>
did you install the nixos distribution itself or did you install nix on top of something else?
<Church->
name54: Yeah just a mini-pc with four nic's
<Church->
And yah, nixOS itself like all my other boxes
<name54>
I've been toying with putting it on my "'big" x86 router (the other little ones are running OpenWRT) but that box wears many hats and I'm a little dissapointed that NixOS packages don't have ucarp in 'em yet ;(
<name54>
I guess you're happy with keepalived, huh? or maybe you don't have a need for a floating ip/failover?
<name54>
But, clearly you've taken the plunge... since it seems you're using NixOS exclusively.
<name54>
I'm probably going to wait it out a bit since my deployment process has held up reasonably well over the years.
<name54>
Maybe it boils down to me being too lazy to build my own ucarp. I can be pretty lazy sometimes -_- -_-
<name54>
Did you have any "big" challenges building out the installations on your NixOS machines?
<Church_>
name54: Yeah no need for a floating ip on my setup
<Church_>
Either servers with static IPS or dynamic wireless clients
<Church_>
Huh, name54 I'll build yah ucarp tn
<Church_>
Seems dead simple
<Church_>
Should probably write a service for it but that should be easy can give you something as basic as, enable and create config file
<name54>
You know what's funny... I was using the floating IP like crazy for years. Lately not so much. But it's one of those things that once you have it you feel like you can't go back!
<Church_>
Nod. Was something we thought about doing at work before I got us on just using "hardware" load balancers
<name54>
I'd be happy to try it out if it got in there... might help me make a commitment sooner than later.
<Church_>
Yah I can get you a deriv you can install via overlay at least later
<name54>
Yeah, there's always the option of using dedicated hw for individual services. I tend to assimilate more and more of that into my FLOSS router.
<name54>
Guess all I'd need is the overlay URL, right?
<Church_>
Yah know I don't actually know? Was just gonna toss a deriv and overlay file at you.
<name54>
I have no idea what the "right" way to do it would be... maybe your own "channel" even? I know ucarp is reasonably popular tool so it seems like a shame if others NixOS users didn't get a chance to use it... but maybe we're getting ahead of ourselves here.
<name54>
Unfortunately neither NixOS nor Guix has it in the official distro yet... although I must admit Guix didn't seem ready for me to seriously consider yet.
<name54>
I'm guessing the "proper" way to do this is outlined here...
<Church_>
There you go, one working deriv for it. :)
<Church_>
cransom: It is to my brief reading at least.
<name54>
specifically on debian/ubuntu. the setup is easy and it adheres rather closely to the "do one thing and do it well" philosophy... that's something I like about it
<name54>
Oh, cool. Something to try out! Thanks Chuch; brb.
<cransom>
when i did the bsd thing, i was using carp. though, that was only when i need to share an ip in some very specific situations. if i'm doing it now, it's either via load balancers or a routing protocol because active/passive is rarely reliable for me.