This is very bad! So "EasyMesh™" and Mesh OpenWrt are not compatible? At least for now.
It is a closed source system that makes use of closed source, built in, functionality of some wireless chipsets. You might get compatibility between router models from different manufacturers if the models use chips from the same chip manufacturer. It seems to be limited to a maximum of 3 nodes and a single hop as far as I can see. It uses a closed source protocol and bares no relation to the published 802.11s standards.
So expect OpenWrt compatibility sometime never.
2 Likes
Sorry but I must clarify this because it is not correct.
In telecommunications there are no "open source" protocols because there is no code to share. Telecommunications protocols can be implemented in infinite ways (through hardware and software). The goal of an open telecommunications protocol is interoperability of different implementations (hardware and/or software), not a single software which needs to be run on every device you need to connect.
More precisely, a differentiation that can be made is between open/standard protocols and closed/proprietary protocols.
"Standard protocol" is usually confused as a synonym for "open source" when the concepts are very different, where sometimes they can work in synergy, other times not. This confusion is of the same order as confusing telecommunications with computing.
EasyMesh is an OPEN/STANDARD protocol. Which means that anyone who downloads the WiFi Alliance standard for free can implement it with that information. It's true, IEEE1905, which is its base protocol, must be "paid" to download but come on, I won't say that you can't download it out there without paying...
Oh, you also have to read some things from the WPS (or WSC) standard, but that's also free.
I imagine I am someone authorized to state this because I literally did it (sorry but it is in spanish):
In the video you can see how I build a topology with wired and wireless links and more than 1 hop. 3 devices of my implementation + one of Arcadyan's. EasyMesh has no explicit limitation for the number of nodes.
PrplMesh also did it. Perhaps PrplMesh has focused on operating with proprietary drivers but in my case I work with nothing more than open source ones (at least for now).
Easy mesh is not simple mesh.
Lets add another mesh standard in the soup
What I actually said was:
You say "my implementation", well all very nice, but other than a video with lots of hand waving, what else would you like to share? Where is your repository where we can see your source code?
Enrollment is vendor extension, standard is mostly wifi encap over ethernet, not even 11s path adjustments.
I don't have the need to prove anything to you and my point is not to promote what I do (not here). I used it as an example to explain the misconceptions you mentioned and clarify what EasyMesh really is, and most basically: what a telecommunications standard is... in order to help anyone interested in understanding it (that clearly is not your case, but this topic seems to be focused for it).
Since I am a specialist on the subject and I know the standard in a level that I could rewrite it in its entirety if it were lost, I offer to answer any questions about it that may arise. And anyone who does not believe that I am right in anything I could say, I invite them to read the standard and we will gladly discuss in detail what they consider.
Just to give more information to who is interested: most of ISPs around the world are using EasyMesh as the standard for interoperability of multi-ap WiFi Networks.
SimpleMesh is not a standard, PrplMesh also does not. They are sfotwares which implement EasyMesh (which is a standard).
Is what I am trying to explain. Standard != Implementation. A standard can have infinite implementations.
The enrollment and path allocation is not part of standard, the standard encapsulation will not yield you any kind of functional mesh over eg trunked vlans, or non-standard opensource batman....
EasyMesh is a generalization of Ethernet loop-free networks for heterogeous technologies (Ethernet, WiFi, G.hn, MoCA...) and counts with stackable protocols like STP to manage redundancies.
Regarding VLANs, EasyMesh v2 (release 2) defines WiFi Data frames for VLAN over WiFi trunking and also the management plane for trunking over the network via the Controller, over any L1/L2 technology which supports them.
EasyMesh focuses on automatic configuration, automatic channel coordination, unified SSID, unified control/monitoring of the whole network and high troughput with stable backhaul links. If you want this approach, EasyMesh is a nice bet and works, and that is why is it being well adopted by ISPs (while 802.11s does not).
EasyMesh is not and does not pretend to be 802.11s or BATMAN.
"Enrollment" is not a term in an EasyMesh context but I can say with 100% certainty that adding a device to an EasyMesh network works by itself and is automatic. "Path allocation" is not an issue with EasyMesh, since it is not an issue for Ethernet or WDS. IEEE1905/EasyMesh defines an abstraction layer over existing L1/L2 techonologies.
Yes, everyone can be an admin for yor device.
If you have well-founded doubts, I will gladly answer them. That unsupported statement makes it difficult for me to even understand what you would be referring to.
While the configuration of your EasyMesh daemon depends in which ways you want to leave open: webpage, ssh, serial, telnet, snmp, tr069... like any other package.
You are trying to explain something that no-one has mentioned as far as I can see (to be fair I cannot be bothered to read again from the beginning).
Actually, it is the router manufacturers that are licencing closed source API from chip manufacturers to provide, as you say, "multi-ap WiFi Networks".
All well and good, and with varying degrees of success.
But this is extremely unlikely to ever be available on mainstream OpenWrt.
Quoting the first reply to this thread, from way back in May 2018:
That is five and one half years ago and nothing has happened in that time with regard to OpenWrt.
1 Like
Maybe you are right and WiFi Alliance's, ISP's, Silicon's, OEM's, Prpl's guys and me just a bunch of jerks, but jerks which develop products in an industry at least 
But I am pretty sure that this post is titled "Wi-Fi EasyMesh" and the only guy who talked about it with knowing something about the topic is me.
Cheers.
The very first post in this thread:
I think the thread is done after five years. Time for it to be closed. @psherman
@Pablomagno, if you would care to share some code or point to your repository, you could open a new thread, then it can be discussed whether "openwrt is a good platform to implement Wi-Fi EasyMesh".
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 10 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.