[manet] Re: OLSRv2 draft

Hi Christopher, we want to experiment with OLSRv2 and would be interested in checking out some of these new extensions you are describing as they become available. What OLSRv2 source distribution should we be using?

Also please note that the Multilink Local Addressing (MLA) scheme I described during the IETF120 session has been tested on the NRL OLSR distribution and we would also like to test it on the most appropriate OLSRv2 distribution. So, thanks in advance for any pointers.

Fred Templin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Dearlove <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2024 10:48 AM
> To: [email protected] List <[email protected]>
> Subject: [manet] OLSRv2 draft
> 
> I think - both how I was coming round to thinking about it, but this was reinforced by Julius’ comment, that the emphasis is wrong in the
> current responsive OLSV2 draft.
> 
> Rather than presenting this as “in this scenario, you can do this” with the implication that will work (but it only sometimes might) instead I
> think the emphasis should be:
> 
> In cases where routers send messages infrequently, for any reason, it takes time for a new router to learn about remote routers, unlike
> remote routers learning about new routers, assuming responsive messages.
> 
> That asymmetry can be broken if an additional form of responsive message is sent - a TC message in response to a new tuple in the
> Advertised Remote Router Set.
> 
> In the extreme case - only responsive messages - this becomes necessary, not just advisable. But that should be an after comment, not the
> basis.
> 
> To address Julius’ point, will that solve all your problems? Probably not in general. But that’s not new. OLSRv2 with its large number of
> options (dynamic parameters, responsive messages, different kinds of intervals) is in many ways a framework for a specialised network to
> pick and choose from - as well of course as an out of the box case that often works. This is therefore nothing new in that regard.
> 
> If there’s any interest - there might or might not be - I think changing the emphasis in that way would be more appropriate.
> 
> Christopher
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]