[manet] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-eastla ke-manet-babel-wi-fi-00.txt

Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> Fri, 17 Jul 2026 14:34:10 -0400
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.manet
Message-ID <CAF4+nEFgX6H15vR62gTOmbjkhN-BBKCAzFqNB8yVWLUvr90GMA@mail.gmail.com>
--===============8645105456544228460==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002d6cd60656d2ce3a"

--0000000000002d6cd60656d2ce3a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Fred,

IBSS provides a point-to-point link between pairs of participating
Stations. Of course you can build multi-hop forwarding/routing on top of
IBSS just like you can on top of point-to-point bluetooth or Ethernet
copper or coax or fiber or most other kinds of link protocols.

I think a better answer than you got from AI would have been: "No, IBSS
cannot be used to provide multi-hop forwarding without additional mechanism=
s
on top of IBSS much of which could just as easily be put on top of other
point-to-point link protocols." And then possibly continued with a
discussion of such mechanisms.

Thanks,
Donald
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 [email protected]


On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 10:36=E2=80=AFAM Templin (US), Fred L <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Donald, your statement about IBSS mode being single-hop-only is correc=
t
> at L2 but It can be made to do multi-hop at L3 by running IP address base=
d
> routing protocols such as the MANET family this group works with. I have
> been doing that since the early 2000=E2=80=99s with TBRPF:
>
>
>
> https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1036114
>
>
>
> I know people on this list have cautioned about AI, but you all are just
> going to have to get over your misgivings and jump forward into the 21st
> century. For example, here is what AI says when I ask it =E2=80=9CCan IEE=
E 802.11
> in IBSS mode be used for multi-hop forwarding?=E2=80=9D:
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Short answer: Yes =E2=80=94 but not natively at the 802.11 MAC level. IBS=
S
> (ad=E2=80=91hoc) mode provides a single-hop wireless fabric; to get multi=
=E2=80=91hop
> forwarding you must run an additional forwarding/routing layer (either L2
> or L3) on top of IBSS. In practice that is done with ad=E2=80=91hoc routi=
ng daemons
> or by using 802.11s (mesh).
>
> Details and options
>
>    - What IBSS provides:
>       - IBSS (802.11 ad=E2=80=91hoc) lets stations communicate peer=E2=80=
=91to=E2=80=91peer
>       without an AP, within radio range.
>       - The 802.11 MAC itself is single=E2=80=91hop: a frame is transmitt=
ed by a
>       station and received only by stations within its radio range.
>    - How multi=E2=80=91hop is achieved:
>       - L3 routing: run an IP routing protocol (AODV, OLSR, BATMAN,
>       Babel, etc.) on top of IBSS. Each node forwards IP packets at the n=
etwork
>       layer; IBSS provides the link layer connectivity between neighbors.
>       - L2 forwarding/bridging: use a layer=E2=80=912 mesh/bridge mechani=
sm
>       (e.g., batman-adv, or 802.11s) so frames can be forwarded at L2 acr=
oss
>       multiple hops.
>       - 802.11s: the standard mesh mode provides a MAC/mesh path
>       selection layer specifically designed for multi=E2=80=91hop Wi=E2=
=80=91Fi. If supported by
>       drivers/firmware, it=E2=80=99s generally preferable to IBSS+L3 rout=
ing.
>    - Practical considerations and caveats:
>       - Native IBSS has no built=E2=80=91in multi=E2=80=91hop forwarding,=
 so you must add
>       routing/forwarding software.
>       - Performance degrades with hops: throughput and latency worsen due
>       to shared medium and repeated retransmissions.
>       - Hidden-node, power=E2=80=91save and beacon synchronization issues=
 can be
>       worse in ad=E2=80=91hoc deployments.
>       - Broadcast/flooding (ARP, discovery) can be expensive=E2=80=94cons=
ider
>       using efficient routing that reduces broadcast storms.
>       - Driver/firmware support varies; some NICs/firmware have poor IBSS
>       behaviour or do not support 802.11s.
>    - Recommendations:
>       - If you want a standard MAC=E2=80=91level mesh: use 802.11s if you=
r
>       hardware and OS support it.
>       - If constrained to IBSS: run a proven mesh/routing stack such
>       as batman-adv (L2) or olsrd/babel/aodv (L3).
>       - For experiments or small deployments, IBSS + OLSR/AODV is common;
>       for production, prefer 802.11s or commercial mesh solutions.
>
> ---
>
>
>
> Does this mean that we should trust everything AI tells us? Not at all =
=E2=80=93
> AI results always need to be taken with a grain of salt and verified for
> accuracy. But to suggest that we should not consult AI in this day and ag=
e
> is old-school thinking that I think is becoming obsolete in the 21st
> century.
>
>
>
> Thank you - Fred
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Donald Eastlake <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 16, 2026 6:04 PM
> *To:* manet <[email protected]>
> *Subject:* [manet] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for
> draft-eastlake-manet-babel-wi-fi-00.txt
>
>
>
> See below at <DE>
>
>
>
> <DE> Hi,
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2026 at 10:46=E2=80=AFAM Templin (US), Fred L <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Donald, asking AI: =E2=80=9CHow does IEEE802.11 IBSS mode differ from
> IEEE802.11 mesh?=E2=80=9D produces illuminating results. Back when I was =
doing
> multi-hop routing with TBRPF all we had to work with was IBSS mode, as IE=
EE
> 802.11s did not exist yet.
>
>
>
> <DE> I don't know what AIs say, but IBSS (Independent Basic Service Set)
> mode is a simple one-hop complete mesh. Every Station needs to be able to
> transmit to and receive from every other Station in the IBSS. The origina=
l
> target scenario was a set of people sitting around a conference table in
> the absence of any Access Points (APs) that wanted to communicate with ea=
ch
> other to share files or whatever. But, in my experience, IBSS is mostly
> used by personal computers that want to tether to a cell phone to access
> their data over cellular.
>
>
>
> <DE> 802.11 standard mesh (MBSS) is quite different with a multi-hop
> forwarding model inside the mesh. It is my understanding that most 802.11
> "mesh" products are not conformant to the 802.11 standard although there
> are implementations and an early version of the standard was incorporated
> into the One Laptop Per Child project. Being a mesh Station and being an =
AP
> are orthogonal and a Station can be both.
>
>
>
> I can picture how multiple (heterogeneous) MANET interfaces works with
> IBSS mode, but I am less certain about multiple interfaces and IEEE802.11=
s.
>
>
>
> <DE> I don't want to get too deep into the 802.11 logical architecture bu=
t
> there are a bunch of complexities including mesh gateways, portals, etc.
> But in any case, the idea is to use Babel inside the existing 802.11 mesh
> standard so the way a mesh Station interconnects with things that are not
> part of the mesh would not change.
>
>
>
> Thank you - Fred
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2026 at 12:54=E2=80=AFPM Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]>=
 wrote:
>
> >> Is a similar profile possible for other MANET routing protocols over
>
> >> Wi-Fi mesh =E2=80=93 for example, OLSRv2? Or is there something specia=
l about
>
> >> Babel that makes it better suited for Wi-Fi mesh?
>
>
>
> In the original 802.11s, there were two routing protocols: HWMP, which wa=
s
>
> MTI, and RA-OLSR (a variant of OLSRv1), which was optional.  RA-OLSR
>
> failed in the market, I'm not sure if it is still in the spec (I haven't
>
> read the recent revisions of 802.11s).
>
>
>
> <DE> There were a number of people in the 802.11s Task Group pushing
> RA-OLSR but there is always tremendous pressure to simplify standards in
> 802. For various reasons, a number of them dropped out. Technical votes i=
n
> 802 require a 3/4 supermajority and there had been 25+% supporting RA-OLS=
R
> which kept it in the standards. But when several of its proponents stoppe=
d
> participating, very quickly there was a 3/4 in favor of stripping RA-OLSR
> out of the draft and it was gone.
>
>
>
> <DE> As usual in 802, the 802.11 WG periodically does roll-ups to include
> amendments into the main standard. So there is no more "802.11s" and the
> combined IEEE Std 802.11 still has only the HWMP routing protocol for mes=
h.
> (The most recent version is IEEE Std 802.11-2024 which is 5,954 pages lon=
g.)
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2026 at 1:12=E2=80=AFPM Christopher Dearlove <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> The biggest potential option that basing on OLSRv2 rather than OLSR(v1)
> would be link metrics.
>
>
>
> (You=E2=80=99d be building a new way to encode data I presume so the 5444=
 format
> wouldn=E2=80=99t apply. In an ideal world the authors would have liked to=
 separate
> the structure of OLSRv2 from its 5444 encoding, but having already spun o=
ff
> NHDP that was just a step too far.)
>
>
>
> <DE> Well, you want to envelope the routing protocol messages within
> appropriate 802.11 frame constructs. But you might be able to do that wit=
h
> 5444 format messages.
>
>
>
>
>
> <DE> Thanks,
>
> Donald
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
>
>  2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
>
>  [email protected]
>

--0000000000002d6cd60656d2ce3a
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hi Fred,</div><div><br></div><div>IB=
SS provides a point-to-point link between pairs of participating Stations. =
Of course you can build multi-hop forwarding/routing on top of IBSS just li=
ke you can on top of point-to-point bluetooth or Ethernet copper or coax or=
 fiber or most other kinds of link protocols.</div><div><span style=3D"back=
ground-color:transparent"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"background-c=
olor:transparent">I think a=C2=A0</span>better<span style=3D"background-col=
or:transparent"> answer than you got from AI would have been: &quot;No, IBS=
S cannot be used to provide multi-hop forwarding without additional </span>=
mechanisms<span style=3D"background-color:transparent"> on top of IBSS much=
 of which could just as easily be put on top of other point-to-point link p=
rotocols.&quot; And then possibly continued with a discussion of </span>suc=
h mechanisms<span style=3D"background-color:transparent">.</span></div><div=
><br></div><div><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr"=
>Thanks,<br>Donald<br>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<br>=C2=A0Donald E. Eastlake 3rd<=
br>=C2=A02386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA<br>=C2=A0<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a></div></div></=
div><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir=
=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 10:36=E2=80=AFAM Temp=
lin (US), Fred L &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">Fred.L.Te=
[email protected]</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" =
style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);pa=
dding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"msg-1470238140358947024">





<div lang=3D"EN-US" style=3D"overflow-wrap: break-word;">
<div class=3D"m_-1470238140358947024WordSection1">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt">Hi Donald, your state=
ment about IBSS mode being single-hop-only is correct at L2 but It can be m=
ade to do multi-hop at L3 by running IP address based routing protocols suc=
h as the MANET family this group works
 with. I have been doing that since the early 2000=E2=80=99s with TBRPF:<u>=
</u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u><=
/span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt"><a href=3D"https://ie=
eexplore.ieee.org/document/1036114" target=3D"_blank">https://ieeexplore.ie=
ee.org/document/1036114</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u><=
/span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt">I know people on this=
 list have cautioned about AI, but you all are just going to have to get ov=
er your misgivings and jump forward into the 21<sup>st</sup> century. For e=
xample, here is what AI says when
 I ask it =E2=80=9CCan IEEE 802.11 in IBSS mode be used for multi-hop forwa=
rding?=E2=80=9D:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u><=
/span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt">---<u></u><u></u></sp=
an></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt">Short answer: Yes =E2=
=80=94 but not natively at the 802.11 MAC level. IBSS (ad=E2=80=91hoc) mode=
 provides a single-hop wireless fabric; to get multi=E2=80=91hop forwarding=
 you must run an additional forwarding/routing layer (either
 L2 or L3) on top of IBSS. In practice that is done with ad=E2=80=91hoc rou=
ting daemons or by using 802.11s (mesh).<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt">Details and options<u=
></u><u></u></span></p>
<ul style=3D"margin-top:0in" type=3D"disc">
<li class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt">What IBSS provides:<=
u></u><u></u></span></li><ul style=3D"margin-top:0in" type=3D"circle">
<li class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt">IBSS (802.11 ad=E2=
=80=91hoc) lets stations communicate peer=E2=80=91to=E2=80=91peer without a=
n AP, within radio range.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class=3D"MsoNormal">=
<span style=3D"font-size:11pt">The 802.11 MAC itself is single=E2=80=91hop:=
 a frame is transmitted by a station and received only by stations within i=
ts radio range.<u></u><u></u></span></li></ul>
<li class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt">How multi=E2=80=91ho=
p is achieved:<u></u><u></u></span></li><ul style=3D"margin-top:0in" type=
=3D"circle">
<li class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt">L3 routing: run an I=
P routing protocol (AODV, OLSR, BATMAN, Babel, etc.) on top of IBSS. Each n=
ode forwards IP packets at the network layer; IBSS provides the link layer =
connectivity
 between neighbors.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class=3D"MsoNormal"><span =
style=3D"font-size:11pt">L2 forwarding/bridging: use a layer=E2=80=912 mesh=
/bridge mechanism (e.g.,=C2=A0batman-adv, or 802.11s) so frames can be forw=
arded at L2 across multiple hops.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class=3D"Mso=
Normal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt">802.11s: the standard mesh mode prov=
ides a MAC/mesh path selection layer specifically designed for multi=E2=80=
=91hop Wi=E2=80=91Fi. If supported by drivers/firmware, it=E2=80=99s genera=
lly preferable
 to IBSS+L3 routing.<u></u><u></u></span></li></ul>
<li class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt">Practical considerat=
ions and caveats:<u></u><u></u></span></li><ul style=3D"margin-top:0in" typ=
e=3D"circle">
<li class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt">Native IBSS has no b=
uilt=E2=80=91in multi=E2=80=91hop forwarding, so you must add routing/forwa=
rding software.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class=3D"MsoNormal"><span styl=
e=3D"font-size:11pt">Performance degrades with hops: throughput and latency=
 worsen due to shared medium and repeated retransmissions.<u></u><u></u></s=
pan></li><li class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt">Hidden-node=
, power=E2=80=91save and beacon synchronization issues can be worse in ad=
=E2=80=91hoc deployments.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class=3D"MsoNormal">=
<span style=3D"font-size:11pt">Broadcast/flooding (ARP, discovery) can be e=
xpensive=E2=80=94consider using efficient routing that reduces broadcast st=
orms.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-=
size:11pt">Driver/firmware support varies; some NICs/firmware have poor IBS=
S behaviour or do not support 802.11s.<u></u><u></u></span></li></ul>
<li class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt">Recommendations:<u><=
/u><u></u></span></li><ul style=3D"margin-top:0in" type=3D"circle">
<li class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt">If you want a standa=
rd MAC=E2=80=91level mesh: use 802.11s if your hardware and OS support it.<=
u></u><u></u></span></li><li class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:1=
1pt">If constrained to IBSS: run a proven mesh/routing stack such as=C2=A0b=
atman-adv=C2=A0(L2) or=C2=A0olsrd/babel/aodv=C2=A0(L3).<u></u><u></u></span=
></li><li class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt">For experiment=
s or small deployments, IBSS + OLSR/AODV is common; for production, prefer =
802.11s or commercial mesh solutions.<u></u><u></u></span></li></ul>
</ul>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt">---<u></u><u></u></sp=
an></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u><=
/span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt">Does this mean that w=
e should trust everything AI tells us? Not at all =E2=80=93 AI results alwa=
ys need to be taken with a grain of salt and verified for accuracy. But to =
suggest that we should not consult AI in this
 day and age is old-school thinking that I think is becoming obsolete in th=
e 21<sup>st</sup> century.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u><=
/span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt">Thank you - Fred<u></=
u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u><=
/span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u><=
/span></p>
<div style=3D"border-width:medium medium medium 1.5pt;border-style:none non=
e none solid;border-color:currentcolor currentcolor currentcolor blue;paddi=
ng:0in 0in 0in 4pt">
<div>
<div style=3D"border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;b=
order-color:rgb(225,225,225) currentcolor currentcolor;padding:3pt 0in 0in"=
>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span style=3D"font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri=
,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style=3D"font-size:11pt;font-family:Cali=
bri,sans-serif"> Donald Eastlake &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>&gt;
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, July 16, 2026 6:04 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> manet &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">ma=
[email protected]</a>&gt;<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [manet] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-eastlak=
e-manet-babel-wi-fi-00.txt<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">See below at &lt;DE&gt;<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">&lt;DE&gt; Hi,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">On Tue, Jul 14, 2026 at 10:46<span style=3D"font-fam=
ily:Arial,sans-serif">=E2=80=AF</span>AM Templin (US), Fred L &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">Fred.L.Templin@boei=
ng.com</a>&gt; wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Hi Donald, asking AI: =E2=80=9CHow does IEEE802.11 I=
BSS mode differ from IEEE802.11 mesh?=E2=80=9D produces illuminating result=
s. Back when I was doing multi-hop routing with TBRPF all we had to work wi=
th was IBSS mode, as IEEE 802.11s did not exist yet.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">&lt;DE&gt; I don&#39;t know what AIs say, but IBSS (=
Independent Basic Service Set) mode is a simple one-hop complete mesh. Ever=
y Station needs to be able to transmit to and receive from every other Stat=
ion in the IBSS. The original target scenario
 was a set of people sitting around a conference table in the absence of an=
y Access Points (APs) that wanted to communicate with each other to share f=
iles or whatever. But, in my experience, IBSS is mostly used by personal co=
mputers that want to tether to a
 cell phone to access their data over cellular.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">&lt;DE&gt; 802.11 standard mesh (MBSS) is quite diff=
erent with a multi-hop forwarding model inside the mesh. It is my understan=
ding that most 802.11 &quot;mesh&quot; products are not conformant to the 8=
02.11 standard although there are implementations
 and an early version of the standard was incorporated into the One Laptop =
Per Child project. Being a mesh Station and being an AP are orthogonal and =
a Station can be both.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">I can picture how multiple (heterogeneous) MANET int=
erfaces works with IBSS mode, but I am less certain about multiple interfac=
es and IEEE802.11s.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">&lt;DE&gt; I don&#39;t want to get too deep into the=
 802.11 logical architecture but there are a bunch of complexities includin=
g mesh gateways, portals, etc. But in any case, the idea is to use Babel in=
side the existing 802.11 mesh standard so the
 way a mesh Station interconnects with things that are not part of the mesh=
 would not change.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Thank you - Fred<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">On Tue, Jul 14, 2026 at 12:54<span style=3D"font-fam=
ily:Arial,sans-serif">=E2=80=AF</span>PM Juliusz Chroboczek &lt;<a href=3D"=
mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>&gt; wrote:<u></u><u><=
/u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">&gt;&gt; Is a similar profile possible for other MAN=
ET routing protocols over<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">&gt;&gt; Wi-Fi mesh =E2=80=93 for example, OLSRv2? O=
r is there something special about<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">&gt;&gt; Babel that makes it better suited for Wi-Fi=
 mesh?<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">In the original 802.11s, there were two routing prot=
ocols: HWMP, which was<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">MTI, and RA-OLSR (a variant of OLSRv1), which was op=
tional.=C2=A0 RA-OLSR<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">failed in the market, I&#39;m not sure if it is stil=
l in the spec (I haven&#39;t<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">read the recent revisions of 802.11s).<u></u><u></u>=
</p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">&lt;DE&gt; There were a number of people in the 802.=
11s Task Group pushing RA-OLSR but there is always tremendous pressure to s=
implify standards in 802. For various reasons, a number of them dropped out=
. Technical votes in 802 require=C2=A0a 3/4 supermajority
 and there had been 25+% supporting RA-OLSR which kept it in the standards.=
 But when several of its proponents stopped participating, very quickly the=
re was a 3/4 in favor of stripping RA-OLSR out of the draft and it=C2=A0was=
 gone.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">&lt;DE&gt; As usual in 802, the 802.11 WG periodical=
ly does roll-ups to include amendments into the main standard. So there is =
no more &quot;802.11s&quot; and the combined IEEE Std 802.11 still has only=
 the HWMP routing protocol for mesh. (The most recent
 version is IEEE Std 802.11-2024 which is 5,954 pages long.)<u></u><u></u><=
/p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">On Tue, Jul 14, 2026 at 1:12<span style=3D"font-fami=
ly:Arial,sans-serif">=E2=80=AF</span>PM Christopher Dearlove &lt;<a href=3D=
"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">christopher.dearl=
[email protected]</a>&gt; wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">The biggest potential option that basing on OLSRv2 r=
ather than OLSR(v1) would be link metrics.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">(You=E2=80=99d be building a new way to encode data =
I presume so the 5444 format wouldn=E2=80=99t apply. In an ideal world the =
authors would have liked to separate the structure of OLSRv2 from its 5444 =
encoding, but having already spun off NHDP that was
 just a step too far.)<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">&lt;DE&gt; Well, you want to envelope the routing pr=
otocol messages within appropriate 802.11 frame constructs. But you might b=
e able to do that with 5444 format messages.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">&lt;DE&gt; Thanks,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Donald<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0Donald E. Eastlake 3rd<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A02386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA<u>=
</u><u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"=
_blank">[email protected]</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

</div></blockquote></div></div>

--0000000000002d6cd60656d2ce3a--


--===============8645105456544228460==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline

X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KbWFuZXQgbWFp
bGluZyBsaXN0IC0tIG1hbmV0QGlldGYub3JnClRvIHVuc3Vic2NyaWJlIHNlbmQgYW4gZW1haWwg
dG8gbWFuZXQtbGVhdmVAaWV0Zi5vcmcK

--===============8645105456544228460==--