View Full Version : StarV3 v1.1.5b build 1661 (beta-5) is ready for testing
The new release is available for testing. It is BETA, and should not be used on mission-critical systems.
Downgrading back to previous V3 releases is possible.
This release should be considered more or less stable, however please refer to all the beta release notes, and do not upgrade any critical systems as some issues may still be outstanding.
For more information, please visit the release page.
http://www.star-os.com/release-notes/starv3-1.1.5b-1661.htm
Please post your results in this thread.
Primary focus of this release is compatibility, and low signal testing.
bobbyc
10-12-2006, 04:55 PM
Hi,
I've been getting some WARs built in the shop this afternoon. They are all testing great thus far. Speed tests on the bench with low signals are back to normal as seen with build 1509.
Hopefully I can contribute more later.
Bob C
Thank you for the update.
ChrisII
10-12-2006, 07:46 PM
I seem to have found a problem. I was running 1.1.4 1509 with no problems working great, decided why not give the BETA a try, Backed my config up and proceeded to upgrade everything went well except for the fact that the wireless card would no longer associate with the AP, it just kept cycling frequencies...
Wireless card is either a WLM54G or a CM9.
wpci1 MAC: 00:80:48:3F:55:97
Details: (Pictures)
http://infernowolf.com/Album/ChrisII/WAR2/index.htm
I then Downgraded back to the previous firmware and left it at that.
I put this on 2 of the three links that gave me problems before. Both are working better as far as the backbone 5.x links. Haven't noticed any dramatic changes to the 2.4 links but they are all associating very quickly. One tower is showing all 11 meg links and they weren't all 11's before the upgrade. This one definitely looks good from my experiences, at least so far. Ain't gonna try the rattler mtn one just yet, waiting for more cold weather to drive the suckers into hibernation!
My BB links are all CM9's.
David L. Vrablic
10-12-2006, 08:31 PM
Chris, I just had a idea.
Are you using the custom scan list or are you at defaults.?
-----------------
Also;
I get a feeling that there is some threshold that must be exceeded before the signal even shows up. I noticed it in the Atheros parms that can be set on the Dell's. I seem to remember there were three levels.
I wonder what the defaults are set to. Tony?
With some of the cloaking improvements in v1.1.5 are not quite compatible with v1.1.4 under some configurations. There are some notes onto how to get a mixed 1.1.4/1.1.5 cloaking network operational in the beta-1 release notes.
I seem to have found a problem. I was running 1.1.4 1509 with no problems working great, decided why not give the BETA a try, Backed my config up and proceeded to upgrade everything went well except for the fact that the wireless card would no longer associate with the AP, it just kept cycling frequencies...
Wireless card is either a WLM54G or a CM9.
wpci1 MAC: 00:80:48:3F:55:97
Details: (Pictures)
http://infernowolf.com/Album/ChrisII/WAR2/index.htm
I then Downgraded back to the previous firmware and left it at that.
I see you are using cloaking. There are cloaking incompatibilities between 1.1.5b and all previous versions. I'm not sure what specifically does and doesn't work, but from what I understand you will want to use auto rate on both AP and client in order for them to be able to communicate with each other.
Please check out the caveats section from:
http://www.star-os.com/release-notes/starv3-1.1.5b-1616.htm
ChrisII
10-12-2006, 08:57 PM
Little did i spot the fine print, Great job with the new BETA build then!
I just tried, I have the 1.1.4 board in AP mode, the 1.1.5b board in station mode. Using 4x cloaking I can't figure out how to get them to connect to each other. Auto doesn't work, forcing them to various rates doesn't work.
bobbyc
10-12-2006, 09:41 PM
does no cloaking, or turning off superag work?
Bob C
No cloaking works fine, SuperA/G on or off makes no difference.
It's only 4x cloaking between 1.1.4 and 1.1.5b that doesn't work
I just tried 2x cloaking, it does work between 1.1.4 and 1.1.5b if you use auto rate. It is able to communicate at "12" under 1.1.5b which is "24" under 1.1.4.
Separate unrelated question for tony:
What happened to AP power saving in 1.1.5b? Is it just universally off now?
Also, it's your prerogative, but it feels like 1.1.5 should instead be dubbed 1.2.0- A new atheros driver is such a huge change. More of an important change than most any feature you could add.
1.1.5b/1661 came up! The remote AP that's a 5-minute drive away that failed to associate its 5GHz station interface with the previous 1.1.5b builds came up!
I see a couple problems now.
One, tx power override is being ignored. My WLM54G cards are definitely running at a lower transmit power. The 5GHz backhaul CM9 was set to 20 and is definitely about 2 - 3dB lower now.
Two, WDS isn't working with my 1.1.4 clients. I disabled SuperA/G features at the AP and even rebooted after doing so but I still have no communication with the three clients that are using WDS. I downgraded to 1.1.4 so that I could communicate with them again.
In 2,4GHz only 11 channels. (##)
The ## country code has been removed in 1.1.5b so if you try to use ## with any 1.1.5b build you'll find that it just acts like "NA" which is, "You haven't set your country code."
If you want to use channels outside of 1 - 11 you'll have to set your country code to a country that allows the use of those channels.
I need to use frequency of 2702MHz!
lonnie
10-13-2006, 08:55 AM
We are still working out the details to be able to provide a special license that is locked to the frequencies you have a license to use. We can only supply software that that uses the unlicensed frequencies unless the user has a license for more. In order to have our driver accepted as certified as the same as the Atheros submissions to various governing bodies we cannot allow the use of frequencies that Atheros has taken care to avoid using.
I'm still not sure of the best way to address this, but we are working on it.
The last version means for me 1.1.4 :(
lonnie
10-13-2006, 04:06 PM
Aren't you worried about using a frequency that is not intended for you to use? I don't know where you live, but in many countries it could get you into a lot of trouble.
palmczak
10-13-2006, 07:49 PM
The ability to set the frequency by actual frequency would be great. Other wireless systems allow you to choose 921.6 for example or 908.4 as the center frequency. This would allow even better choices when interference is a problem.
The choice to use a freq outside what is allowed is NO differnet than the guy with the 4 watt amp, behind the 15dbi omni how??? The feature of using other freqs should not go away. I admit just recently I used it. I had a bad interference problem on an AP with 45 customers on it. I was able to change to 2387 and every one was back up it took 2 days to find the problem and fix it. It was the local electric company, telemetry system, it knocked out the whole 2.4 ISM band. NOTHING would associate on any channel from 1-11 even cloaked 4x!
FWIW.
Joe
ninedd
10-13-2006, 10:11 PM
In order to have our driver accepted as certified as the same as the Atheros submissions to various governing bodies we cannot allow the use of frequencies that Atheros has taken care to avoid using. I'm still not sure of the best way to address this, but we are working on it.It would seem that a relatively easy way to accomodate both sides of the issue would be to have Beta versions unlocked while they are being worked on, with the official release versions being compliant. Once you get to a totally stable beta (let's say 1.15b4) the last change for release could be just to update the Version Numbers, remove the ## and re-compile. <- That's probably an oversimplification, but you get my point. :)
I suppose you could also have both Official Release Versions and Licensed or Experimental versions - so a Version 1.15 and a Version 1.15L (Licensed) or 1.15e (Experimental) or something like that. However, either way certainly should keep everyone out of trouble if 'beta' versions or experimental versions allow ## and are clearly marked (as they are) NOT to be used in production systems.
Sure, it might get used / abused by some users, but it would seem that it would solve the issue with all Release Versions being compliant and certified, plus not really having a whack of other versions to compile and maintain for Leagally Licensed users with different licenses, yet would satisfy the 'experimental' use for those that want or need it. It would also eliminate your responsibility to verify licenses and to make sure the licensee's stay current and so on. :)
lonnie
10-14-2006, 12:21 AM
A statement about the issue from the madwifi guys: The ath_hal module contains the Atheros Hardware Access Layer (HAL). This code manages much of the chip-specific operation of the driver. The HAL is provided in a binary-only form in order to comply with FCC regulations. In particular, a radio transmitter can only be operated at power levels and on frequency channels for which it is approved. The FCC requires that a software-defined radio cannot be configured by a user to operate outside the approved power levels and frequency channels. See http://ftp.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/2001/fcc01264.pdf for the specific FCC regulation.
It would seem that a relatively easy way to accomodate both sides of the issue would be to have Beta versions unlocked while they are being worked on, with the official release versions being compliant. Once you get to a totally stable beta (let's say 1.15b4) the last change for release could be just to update the Version Numbers, remove the ## and re-compile. <- That's probably an oversimplification, but you get my point. :)
I suppose you could also have both Official Release Versions and Licensed or Experimental versions - so a Version 1.15 and a Version 1.15L (Licensed) or 1.15e (Experimental) or something like that. However, either way certainly should keep everyone out of trouble if 'beta' versions or experimental versions allow ## and are clearly marked (as they are) NOT to be used in production systems.
Sure, it might get used / abused by some users, but it would seem that it would solve the issue with all Release Versions being compliant and certified, plus not really having a whack of other versions to compile and maintain for Leagally Licensed users with different licenses, yet would satisfy the 'experimental' use for those that want or need it. It would also eliminate your responsibility to verify licenses and to make sure the licensee's stay current and so on. :)
palmczak
10-14-2006, 10:50 AM
Does this mean that we will only have the US (those in the US) country code soon? choosing another country code still allows choices that are "out of bounds" depending on your regulating agency. I think the power issue is the same. How many Canopy operators use the 5.2 system with the reflector? I see them all the time 5.2 has a lower power requirement this is illegal as well but does not seem to get the same scrutiny.
Lonnie, I understand your position. The extra channel feature was a great tool, might be an even greater software bug... :D
This leads me to ask about chhannels and cloaking. When using 1x the radio actually uses 10mhz below this (as well as 10mhz above) the chosen center. will the non chanels below 1 and above 11 be available if the radio is cloaked since they still fall in the unlicensed band? (ie if 4x cloaked there are 2 5mhz channels below channel 1)
A statement about the issue from the madwifi guys: The ath_hal module contains the Atheros Hardware Access Layer (HAL). This code manages much of the chip-specific operation of the driver. The HAL is provided in a binary-only form in order to comply with FCC regulations. In particular, a radio transmitter can only be operated at power levels and on frequency channels for which it is approved. The FCC requires that a software-defined radio cannot be configured by a user to operate outside the approved power levels and frequency channels. See http://ftp.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/2001/fcc01264.pdf for the specific FCC regulation.
ninedd
10-14-2006, 11:34 AM
...The FCC requires that a software-defined radio cannot be configured by a user to operate outside the approved power levels and frequency channels...I wasnt' arguing that those rules exist. I was just suggesting that if the beta versions, that would be clearly marked as being 'for testing only, not for production use', if they allowed ## and you locked it down for all official releases, then it would seem to me that it would satisfy everyone's needs. All official release versions of your software would still be complient and certified, and yet those customers who have built their systems around ## channels wouldn't feel abandoned.
I believe in always trying to find a win-win solution that if possible meets both sides of an issue if it's possible. If it was my company, that's what I would do. I think we all agree and understand with your desire to be certified - you simply can't be on Atheros's list of 'approved vendors' if you don't. However, I see no reason why a beta version can't have a whole range of non-compliant and buggy extra 'features' (as beta software does) and all release versions can still be compliant. Seems to me to be a win-win solution. :)
Besides, you will want & need to test channels 'outside the approved frequencies' anyway. If I bought your solution for our 2500Mhz license, I'd want to know that it had gone through a beta test phase and that I wasn't the only one to have that extra feature enabled. :)
lonnie
10-14-2006, 09:46 PM
We might have to look at actually making the country code part of the license. This is more complicated than simply two sides to a situation. If we provided beta and people used it improperly they would simply not upgrade to the release version.
We have to keep Atheros happy and they have to keep the various regulatory bodies happy who have to ensure that spectrum is used according to their plans.
How many people actually research the spectrum use before they misuse the ## and go outside the approvide unlicensed bands? Do they realize that some of the channels can cause trouble for airport radar? How would you like to be responsible for an aircraft incident? Do you think they would understand or even care that you were simply excperimenting or trying to avoid interference on the bands that were approved for your use?
If you buy our system to use with your 2500 MHz license then we can talk. But until then we are going to do our best to remain legal.
For what it is worth the vendor who has shipped the largest number of certified radios in the world allows them to be used out of band. The Canopy access point has a screen on the web interface that is not advertised, but is available and well known that allows them to be moved out of band. I know this because I asked the employee of one of my less ethical competitors after a spectrum analysis of one of their sites showed significant out of band energy (they also run 5.2 with reflectors so this didn't surprise me much). Motorola is apparently able to ship a certified device in huge quantity that can have the center point moved outside of fcc allowed channels.
I believe that this behaviour is meant for testing purposes only, but they seem to get away with putting it in released code.
lonnie
10-15-2006, 10:23 AM
That is nice to know. Thanks. It seems like everyone has the ability and some people use it for testing. We might have to change our stance.
For what it is worth the vendor who has shipped the largest number of certified radios in the world allows them to be used out of band. The Canopy access point has a screen on the web interface that is not advertised, but is available and well known that allows them to be moved out of band. I know this because I asked the employee of one of my less ethical competitors after a spectrum analysis of one of their sites showed significant out of band energy (they also run 5.2 with reflectors so this didn't surprise me much). Motorola is apparently able to ship a certified device in huge quantity that can have the center point moved outside of fcc allowed channels.
I believe that this behaviour is meant for testing purposes only, but they seem to get away with putting it in released code.
knolan
10-15-2006, 11:33 AM
If Star OS starts to force the users to only use the band that are licensed for their region is OK by me, but if the local telecom regulations allow for additional frequencies then StarOS must allow them as well, not just stick to the gloabl standards, but stick to the local standards.
In Ireland we are allowed a larger list of frequencies than listed by StarOS under the IE country code.
The full list of frequencies are listed on the Irish Telecommunication Regulator's (Comreg) website
http://www.comreg.ie/publications/default.asp?nid=100270&ctype=5
2.400 --> 2.4835 is allowed for Wideband Data Transmission Systems @ 100 mW eirp (ETSI Standard 300 328)
5.150 --> 5.350 is allowed for Hiperlan: Indoor use only @ 200 mW eirp (ETSI Standard 301 893)
5.470 --> 5.725 is allowed for Hiperlan: indoor/outdoor use @ 1W eirp (ETSI Standard 301 893)
5.725 --> 5.875 is allowed for Wideband Data Transmission @ 100mW/MHz up to a maximum of 2W eirp (ETSI Standard TBA) http://www.comreg.ie/5_8GHzRegistration.asp?S=4&NavID=198&M=
Is there anyway that you can take this info, and allow the Irish customer base to continue to have access to the frequencies we are allowed access to.
If you are going to reduce the frequencies we are allowed to use to be only in the ETSI standards then you are reducing the ability for us to compete with WISP's using other companies products.
Regards,
Keith Nolan
ninedd
10-15-2006, 01:08 PM
That is nice to know. Thanks. It seems like everyone has the ability and some people use it for testing. We might have to change our stance.FWIW, I really do think that if you have an undocumented or unsupported or 'backdoor bug' way to get to them, that would satisy the users that want/need it, and would still have an officially compliant driver. After all, at the end of the day, it ultimately is beyond your ability to be able to control all users. Some users will still use use AMPs, some will use UDC, some will use SR9's or SR3's out of band, etc.. As Jeff and others point out, Canopy and Orthogon and MT and most of the competition allows some backdoor method of getting to extra channels.software-defined radio cannot be configured by a USER to operate outside the approved power levels and frequency channels. Which would mean that the end USER is violating the FCC rules, but this really doesn't say anything about the vendor. ;)
therealboss
10-15-2006, 02:20 PM
Orthogon Systems allow you to go out of band too so I don't see a problem.
SteveA
10-18-2006, 01:14 PM
Lonnie,
Does this mean you have your FCC certification for your WAR boards or is that still in work?
One of my customers doesn't distinguish between FCC certified equipment operated out of band or non-FCC equipment operated legally... either way they don't allow it in their facility. An FCC cert number would give me the option to use WAR boards in their facilities instead of other CPEs.
Steve
lonnie
10-18-2006, 09:07 PM
We have not certified the WAR board as a complete system yet. The gear is still a kit. When we decide to sell compeltely assembled systems we will of course obtain FCC, IC and CE certification for the system as a whole.
We use an Atheros certified HAL which is what would allow us to be able to prove that we meet the required regulations for proper use. As you are probably aware there are lots of requirements, most notably dfs, ATPC and out of band use, and if we did not adhere to Atheros standards we would have to submit our driver to the various governing bodies for their approval. We prefer to not have to do that, and we'll use what Atheros has already spent time and money to get approved.
Lonnie,
Does this mean you have your FCC certification for your WAR boards or is that still in work?
One of my customers doesn't distinguish between FCC certified equipment operated out of band or non-FCC equipment operated legally... either way they don't allow it in their facility. An FCC cert number would give me the option to use WAR boards in their facilities instead of other CPEs.
Steve
SteveA
10-19-2006, 07:05 PM
Thanks for the info. By all means use the existing approved code where possible to speed up the process.
Being near DC, I have to select with care which customers I put non-fcc certified gear in. Some of my home customers actually work for the FCC <grin>.
But I still cannot commercially deploy your gear to any location that requires compliance with US code. I wish you speed in your approval process, as Canopy is very pricey.
Steve
Beebe
10-27-2006, 09:34 AM
OSPF appears to be broken in this release. I can turn it on, but when I add an area it constantly restarts itself and never learns the routes.
Thanks,
Roger
rafamous
11-07-2006, 11:30 AM
Does anyone have this version in WAR - StarV3 v1.1.5b that maybe you could email to me or post?
I have the latest beta running the EMP-8602 400mw card. Throughput is next to nothing. Don't know where the problem is, I heard of someone else having throughput challenges with the latest beta.
I have put the EMP-8602 400mw card in a Wrap on v1.1.5b. It improved all of the client radio signals greatly and throughput is excellent. I am trying to repeat this with a WAR board.
rafamous@hotmail.com
Edit:
Just found out why I'm getting low throughput. The EMP-8602 card doesn't support enhanced Atheros features the new EMP-8601 is supposed to. The throughput is not all that bad after all. It's getting between 4 and 3 meg real traffic. This is a redundancy link so that will work for me.
Thanks for all your great work StarOS Team.