Re: AODVv2 implementation

On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 3:32 PM Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Charlie,
>
> > I do not have an implementation.
>
> It is my understanding that Henning has concerns about the implementability
> of AODVv2.  Given Henning's track record, I recommend that we should not
> dismiss his concerns.

Hi Juliusz, hi Charlie,

I would not say that AODV (v1 or v2) is impossible to implement (some
people have done it), but it's much harder to do on most general
purpose operation systems than OLSR(v1 or v2) because of its necessary
interaction with the forwarding plane.

I think I have seen three AODV (v1) implementations in my life, two of
them NS-2 emulator patches (I don't trust NS-2 code at all, most
routing implementations take a lot of liberties that cannot be done on
real software/hardware)  and one of them Linux... the Linux one was a
mess, completely with a Linux Kernel module for a kernel 5+ years old
(which made it in fact unsable).

It seems no one ever took the time to seem if there is a good way to
write the "ICMP-trickery/route-status-monitoring" in a clean way,
which is most likely also the reason why I never heard about an IPv6
AODV implementation, which would need a different ICMPv6 based hack.

That's why I would like to see a running implementation of AODVv2...
it's the only way to validate that you can build interoperable
implementations from the current draft. It's also the only way to test
if the metric integration in AODVv2 is working reasonably well,
because I don't think ANY routing protocol will do us good with
hop-count metric on any wireless radio that supports multiple data
rates.

Henning Rogge

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet