<div dir="ltr"><div><div>Clarification:<br></div><div><br>Mode "ether" does not explain the route collapse with too many nodes participating.<br></div><br></div>Mode "ether" does seem to explain the lack of individual routes on the "leaf" nodes.<br>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 4:26 AM, Russell Senior <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:russell@personaltelco.net" target="_blank">russell@personaltelco.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div>It could be, but it isn't ;-)<br><br></div>Even with Mode "ether" commented out, I'm still seeing the same route collapse behavior when too many devices are on.<br>
<br></div>Commenting it out did improve the route propagation to the "leaf" nodes though.<br>
</div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 4:23 AM, Henning Rogge <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hrogge@gmail.com" target="_blank">hrogge@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
mode "ether" should only be used by a group of OLSRd that run on the<br>
same ethernet switch... which means everyone can see everyone else.<br>
<br>
It suppress some forwarding of incoming OLSR messages because it<br>
assumes that everyone on this interface has already seen the message<br>
anyways.<br>
<br>
If the "hub" had "mode ether" activated it could be a good explanation<br>
what happened.<br>
<span><font color="#888888"><br>
Henning<br>
</font></span><div><div><br>
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Russell Senior<br>
<<a href="mailto:russell@personaltelco.net" target="_blank">russell@personaltelco.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> I should have done this earlier, but here are my olsrd.conf files. On the<br>
> server:<br>
><br>
> ===================================================<br>
> IpVersion 6<br>
><br>
> #Hna4<br>
> #{<br>
> #}<br>
><br>
> Hna6<br>
> {<br>
> 0:: 0<br>
> }<br>
><br>
> LinkQualityFishEye 0<br>
><br>
> LoadPlugin "olsrd_txtinfo.so.0.1"<br>
> {<br>
> PlParam "port" "7862"<br>
> }<br>
><br>
> #############################################<br>
> ### OLSRD default interface configuration ###<br>
> #############################################<br>
> # the default interface section can have the same values as the following<br>
> # interface configuration. It will allow you so set common options for all<br>
> # interfaces.<br>
><br>
> InterfaceDefaults {<br>
> # Ip4Broadcast 255.255.255.255<br>
> }<br>
><br>
> Interface "ptp" "ptp-udp" "vpn" "iris"<br>
> {<br>
> # Mode "ether"<br>
> }<br>
> =====================================================<br>
><br>
> I am pretty sure that Hna4 { } part had been there uncommented for a while.<br>
> The Mode "ether" was uncommented too. When I commented them out, as above,<br>
> and restart I see the individual routes on the client, as you would expect.<br>
> I had noticed the "route aggregation" and been a little surprised, but<br>
> having just moved to a newer version, I wasn't too suspicious.<br>
><br>
> On the clients:<br>
><br>
> =====================================================<br>
><br>
> IpVersion 6<br>
><br>
> LinkQualityFishEye 0<br>
><br>
> Hna6<br>
> {<br>
> 2001:470:e962:xxyy:: 64<br>
> }<br>
><br>
> LoadPlugin "olsrd_txtinfo.so.0.1"<br>
> {<br>
> PlParam "port" "7862"<br>
> }<br>
><br>
> Interface "br-pub" "ptp"<br>
> {<br>
> }<br>
> =====================================================<br>
><br>
> When it's working, I see 177 olsrd routes (the 180 figure included some<br>
> header/footer lines, apparently) on the server and 176 on the client. But<br>
> if I add another node, the routes all collapse still. It is confusing<br>
> though. Sometimes, I only see two routes, as below, apparently when Mode<br>
> "ether" is in force. It's confusing because sometimes I was seeing the more<br>
> complete client routing table even with Mode "ether".<br>
><br>
> Table: Routes<br>
> Destination Gateway IP Metric ETX Interface<br>
> ::/0 2001:470:e962::407 1 1.000 ptp<br>
> 2001:470:e962::407/128 2001:470:e962::407 1 1.000 ptp<br>
><br>
> I am turning Mode "ether" off again, and I seem to get a complete set of<br>
> routes (one less than the server) on the clients.<br>
><br>
> Again, though, if I add one more node, the routes on both the server and<br>
> clients collapse. The clients go to zero. The server has routes to one or<br>
> sometimes two clients, which vary a little bit.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 3:09 AM, Henning Rogge <<a href="mailto:hrogge@gmail.com" target="_blank">hrogge@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Each leaf should have a /128 route for each other leaf...<br>
>><br>
>> Olsrd does NOT do any route aggregation.<br>
>><br>
>> Can you show me a routing table of a leaf and the txtinfo output when<br>
>> everything is fine?<br>
>><br>
>> Henning<br>
>><br>
>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Russell Senior<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:russell@personaltelco.net" target="_blank">russell@personaltelco.net</a>> wrote:<br>
>> > FWIW, the ipv6 routing tables on the "leaf" nodes are quite short, with<br>
>> > mostly just a default route pointing at the central server, when olsrd<br>
>> > is<br>
>> > working. When the central server has the route collapse, the default<br>
>> > route<br>
>> > on the "leaf" nodes disappears.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > I am thinking about memory exhaustion, maybe something his helpfully<br>
>> > killing<br>
>> > it off when the size becomes "too large" ... /me goes to look for<br>
>> > evidence<br>
>> > of that.<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 3:03 AM, Russell Senior<br>
>> > <<a href="mailto:russell@personaltelco.net" target="_blank">russell@personaltelco.net</a>><br>
>> > wrote:<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> The are single hop from the central server, which is the table I've<br>
>> >> been<br>
>> >> posting.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 3:01 AM, Henning Rogge <<a href="mailto:hrogge@gmail.com" target="_blank">hrogge@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> >> wrote:<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> What?<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> but your routing tables only contains "ETX 1.0" paths... which means<br>
>> >>> they are single hop!<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Henning<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Russell Senior<br>
>> >>> <<a href="mailto:russell@personaltelco.net" target="_blank">russell@personaltelco.net</a>> wrote:<br>
>> >>> > Without the ipv6 olsrd, the nodes can't route to each other, it<br>
>> >>> > seems.<br>
>> >>> > I<br>
>> >>> > picked two I had turned off, and tried ping6'ing between them and<br>
>> >>> > got<br>
>> >>> > 100%<br>
>> >>> > packet loss.<br>
>> >>> ><br>
>> >>> ><br>
>> >>> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 2:54 AM, Henning Rogge <<a href="mailto:hrogge@gmail.com" target="_blank">hrogge@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> >>> > wrote:<br>
>> >>> >><br>
>> >>> >> Hi,<br>
>> >>> >><br>
>> >>> >> as far as I can see each "leaf" node can see each other leaf node<br>
>> >>> >> over<br>
>> >>> >> the OpenVPN, right?<br>
>> >>> >><br>
>> >>> >> So you are only using Olsrd to distribute HNAs?<br>
>> >>> >><br>
>> >>> >> Henning Rogge<br>
>> >>> >><br>
>> >>> >> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Russell Senior<br>
>> >>> >> <<a href="mailto:russell@personaltelco.net" target="_blank">russell@personaltelco.net</a>> wrote:<br>
>> >>> >> > The central server, ::407, is running OpenVPN in server mode.<br>
>> >>> >> > The<br>
>> >>> >> > "leaf"<br>
>> >>> >> > nodes all connect to it via OpenVPN client mode with a tap<br>
>> >>> >> > interface.<br>
>> >>> >> > We<br>
>> >>> >> > statically provision the IPv6 addresses on the vpn.<br>
>> >>> >> ><br>
>> >>> >> > And yes, the OpenVPN links are still active. We are running an<br>
>> >>> >> > IPv4<br>
>> >>> >> > instance of olsrd (same version) in parallel and those routes (to<br>
>> >>> >> > the<br>
>> >>> >> > very<br>
>> >>> >> > same devices) are not affected.<br>
>> >>> >> ><br>
>> >>> >> > We see the problem when particular (though varying) nodes olsrd<br>
>> >>> >> > ipv6<br>
>> >>> >> > instances are started/stopped. Sometimes the nodes are running<br>
>> >>> >> > 0.6.6.1,<br>
>> >>> >> > and<br>
>> >>> >> > sometimes 0.6.4. It doesn't seem to be specific. The central<br>
>> >>> >> > server is<br>
>> >>> >> > running 0.6.6.1 now, but we saw the same thing earlier (which is<br>
>> >>> >> > why<br>
>> >>> >> > I<br>
>> >>> >> > upgraded) on 0.6.4.<br>
>> >>> >> ><br>
>> >>> >> > One other potential clue (it doesn't make very much sense,<br>
>> >>> >> > because I<br>
>> >>> >> > know<br>
>> >>> >> > there are much bigger networks than ours), I've never seen more<br>
>> >>> >> > than<br>
>> >>> >> > 186<br>
>> >>> >> > ipv6 routes on ::407. We seem to see the problem when we try to<br>
>> >>> >> > exceed<br>
>> >>> >> > that. I'm going to try to confirm that.<br>
>> >>> >> ><br>
>> >>> >> ><br>
>> >>> >> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Henning Rogge <<a href="mailto:hrogge@gmail.com" target="_blank">hrogge@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> >>> >> > wrote:<br>
>> >>> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> Hi,<br>
>> >>> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> I must admit that I am not convinced that its an Olsrd bug what<br>
>> >>> >> >> we<br>
>> >>> >> >> are<br>
>> >>> >> >> seeing...<br>
>> >>> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> If I see it correctly Olsrd is running over the VPN interface<br>
>> >>> >> >> connection (interface name "vpn"), right?<br>
>> >>> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> Is the VPN connection between the nodes still active during the<br>
>> >>> >> >> route<br>
>> >>> >> >> loss? Most of the nodes seem to have direct connections and the<br>
>> >>> >> >> "30<br>
>> >>> >> >> seconds until recovery" sounds like an ETX value slowly going<br>
>> >>> >> >> down<br>
>> >>> >> >> and<br>
>> >>> >> >> then dropping the link.<br>
>> >>> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> Henning<br>
>> >>> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Saverio Proto<br>
>> >>> >> >> <<a href="mailto:zioproto@gmail.com" target="_blank">zioproto@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> >>> >> >> wrote:<br>
>> >>> >> >> > Hello Russel,<br>
>> >>> >> >> ><br>
>> >>> >> >> > looking at this:<br>
>> >>> >> >> ><br>
>> >>> >> >> ><br>
>> >>> >> >> > <a href="https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-routes-before.txt" target="_blank">https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-routes-before.txt</a><br>
>> >>> >> >> ><br>
>> >>> >> >> ><br>
>> >>> >> >> > <a href="https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-routes-during.txt" target="_blank">https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-routes-during.txt</a><br>
>> >>> >> >> ><br>
>> >>> >> >> > <a href="https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-routes-after.txt" target="_blank">https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-routes-after.txt</a><br>
>> >>> >> >> ><br>
>> >>> >> >> > it looks like IPv6 routes are removed from the olsrd database.<br>
>> >>> >> >> > So<br>
>> >>> >> >> > I<br>
>> >>> >> >> > is<br>
>> >>> >> >> > actually the olsrd daemon involved.<br>
>> >>> >> >> ><br>
>> >>> >> >> > do you know if there is a previous stable version of olsrd<br>
>> >>> >> >> > where<br>
>> >>> >> >> > this<br>
>> >>> >> >> > bug/behaviour is not present ?<br>
>> >>> >> >> ><br>
>> >>> >> >> > In my opinion the fastest way to track the bug is to try<br>
>> >>> >> >> > different<br>
>> >>> >> >> > versions of olsrd with "git bisect" method.<br>
>> >>> >> >> ><br>
>> >>> >> >> > The first step is to tell us if there is a version of olsrd<br>
>> >>> >> >> > that<br>
>> >>> >> >> > is<br>
>> >>> >> >> > not affected by this problem.<br>
>> >>> >> >> ><br>
>> >>> >> >> > thanks<br>
>> >>> >> >> ><br>
>> >>> >> >> > I cc: olsrd-dev<br>
>> >>> >> >> ><br>
>> >>> >> >> > Saverio<br>
>> >>> >> >> ><br>
>> >>> >> >> ><br>
>> >>> >> >> > 2014-03-27 10:37 GMT+01:00 Russell Senior<br>
>> >>> >> >> > <<a href="mailto:russell@personaltelco.net" target="_blank">russell@personaltelco.net</a>>:<br>
>> >>> >> >> >>>>>>> "Henning" == Henning Rogge<br>
>> >>> >> >> >>>>>>> <<a href="mailto:henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de" target="_blank">henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de</a>><br>
>> >>> >> >> >>>>>>> writes:<br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >> Henning> On 03/26/2014 07:41 PM, Russell Senior wrote:<br>
>> >>> >> >> >>>> Anybody get a chance to look at the strace? I see a:<br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >> Henning> strace and packet dumps are much too lowlevel to<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> directly<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> Henning> hunt problems like this. Thats why Saverios question<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> about<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> Henning> txtinfo good, because it gives you a much more<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> high-level<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> Henning> view on what is going on.<br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >> I had not installed the modules previously, so that interface<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> wasn't<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> immediately available. It is now.<br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >> [...]<br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >> Henning> Okay, lets get back to the high-level view.<br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >> Henning> To interpret the events you described we need a list<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> of<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> Henning> nodes, with their interface IPs and the connectivity<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> between<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> Henning> them.<br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >> Here is the list of neighbors of 2001:470:e962::407. The<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> addresses<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> listed are on the public wifi. The OpenVPN addresses of each<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> node<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> are<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> a permutation, e.g. if the public wifi addr is<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> 2001:470:e962:wxyz::1,<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> then the OpenVPN address of the node is 2001:470:e962::wxyz.<br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >> None of the nodes connect directly, everything goes through<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> ::407.<br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >> From curl -6 http://localhost:$port/neighbors<br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >> <a href="https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-neighbors.txt" target="_blank">https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-neighbors.txt</a><br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >> Henning> I am also a bit worried about your usage of bridges<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> Henning> connected to mesh interfaces. Normally you should<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> no<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> bridge<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> Henning> any interface that OLSR uses for meshing. Mixing<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> routing<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> Henning> (L3) and bridging (L2) can go wrong in very creative<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> ways.<br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >> I don't understand how the bridges could be a problem in this<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> case.<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> This is a hub and spoke topology. One openvpn server in the<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> middle,<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> nodes at the edges. None of the nodes interconnect<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> otherwise.<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> Olsr<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> is broadcast on the wifi in case there are any olsrd devices<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> nearby,<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> but, again, there is no overlap in the wifi coverage (and if<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> there<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> were physically, they are on different SSIDs and wouldn't<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> overlap<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> logically).<br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >> Can you explain more about what in particularly would make<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> you<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> worry?<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> This configuration has been stable for us on ipv4 for years<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> and<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> also<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> on ipv6 until very recently, since late 2012 at least. So, I<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> suspect<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> a bug. Somewhere.<br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >> Henning> Txtinfo output would be good (especially /route)<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> would<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> be<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> Henning> good to see... before the problem, during the<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> problem<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> and<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> Henning> after the recovery.<br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >> I'm using curl -6 http://localhost:$port/routes to get the<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> following<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> data, before, during and after turning on an ipv6 olsrd on a<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> particular node (2001:470:e962:11c1::1).<br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >> <a href="https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-routes-before.txt" target="_blank">https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-routes-before.txt</a><br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >> <a href="https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-routes-during.txt" target="_blank">https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-routes-during.txt</a><br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >> <a href="https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-routes-after.txt" target="_blank">https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-routes-after.txt</a><br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >> Henning> It would also help if you can reduce the number of<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> nodes<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> Henning> while still replicating the problem to a minimum.<br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >> I don't have that level of control, unfortunately. When I<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> notice<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> that<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> the ipv6 routes have collapsed, I pick a likely seeming node<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> (maybe<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> because it had been plugged in recently) and turn off ipv6<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> olsrd,<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> and<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> over 30-60 seconds, magically the routes all come back. My<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> luck<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> in<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> guessing the right node to turn off is a little bit "too<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> good",<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> if<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> you<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> know what I mean, so that I am not sure there is anything<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> particularly<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> unique about the node I choose. But, nevertheless, turning<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> it<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> off<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> seems to help, generally.<br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >> FWIW, I'm including olsrd versions here. The central machine<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> ::407<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> is<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> running 0.6.6.1, compiled from the tarball. The nodes have<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> the<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> following versions, all built from openwrt routing feed<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> sources.<br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >> <a href="https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-versions-by-node.txt" target="_blank">https://personaltelco.net/~russell/olsrd/olsrd-versions-by-node.txt</a><br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >> Here is a table listing the frequency of each openwrt<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> version:<br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >> 1 0.6.3-3<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> 33 0.6.4-1<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> 1 0.6.5.1-1<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> 1 0.6.5.1-2<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> 7 0.6.5.2-1<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> 1 0.6.5.3-1<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> 2 0.6.5.4-1<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> 2 0.6.6-2<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> 7 0.6.6-3<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> 11 0.6.6.1-1<br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >> --<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> Russell Senior, President<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> <a href="mailto:russell@personaltelco.net" target="_blank">russell@personaltelco.net</a><br>
>> >>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>> >> >> >> --<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> Olsr-users mailing list<br>
>> >>> >> >> >> <a href="mailto:Olsr-users@lists.olsr.org" target="_blank">Olsr-users@lists.olsr.org</a><br>
>> >>> >> >> >> <a href="https://lists.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-users" target="_blank">https://lists.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-users</a><br>
>> >>> >> >> ><br>
>> >>> >> >> > --<br>
>> >>> >> >> > Olsr-dev mailing list<br>
>> >>> >> >> > <a href="mailto:Olsr-dev@lists.olsr.org" target="_blank">Olsr-dev@lists.olsr.org</a><br>
>> >>> >> >> > <a href="https://lists.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-dev</a><br>
>> >>> >> ><br>
>> >>> >> ><br>
>> >>> ><br>
>> >>> ><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> ><br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>