[olsr-dev] MRP selection (all OLSRd versions)

Sven-Ola Tuecke (spam-protected)
Fri Jan 13 13:24:25 CET 2006


Andreas,

it's semi-permanent. Between 10min. and 1day (depends on wheater conditions 
I presume). LQ Only. As expressed - please wait with hacking/bugtraqing 
until I know more...

LG
Sven-Ola

"Andreas "T√łnnesen"" <(spam-protected)> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:(spam-protected)
> Sven-Ola,
>
> So what you are saying is that the scenario you described is actually not
> only a transitional state(which I assumed in my previous mail) in you
> network but a permanent state which does not change? If so, this is indeed
> a bug.
>
> - Andreas
>
>> Thomas,
>>
>> thanks for that longer answer (aka "private lesson"). The critical
>> sentence
>> is: "if X sees nodes that Y does not see itself, Y should also select X 
>> as
>> an MPR". Which is inherently true for 2 interfaces on one node. I need to
>> recheck with the concrete implementation / installation / configuration
>> and
>> make pretty *sure* nothing is misconfigured or otherwise weird before
>> complaining further ;) Yesterday I've seen a single "bus error" statement
>> in
>> the syslog - which by chance is the kasus knaxus here...
>>
>> LG
>> Sven-Ola
>>
>> "Thomas Lopatic" <(spam-protected)> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>> news:(spam-protected)
>>> Hey Sven-Ola,
>>>
>>>> (Mail with pdf attachment obviously halted. PDF is here:
>>>> http://styx.commando.de/sven-ola/mprcoverage.pdf )
>>>
>>> Hmmm. Wait a second. .1 sees .2, .3, and .4, and says in its LQ HELLOs
>>> that it sees these nodes. .5 sees .6, .7, and .8, and also says in its
>>> LQ HELLOs that it sees these nodes.
>>>
>>> So, as long as, for example, .1 sees .5's LQ HELLOs, it should know that
>>> .5 sees nodes that it does not see itself, namely .6, .7, and .8. Which
>>> in turn should make .1 select .5 as an MPR.
>>>
>>> Analogously, if .5 sees .1's LQ HELLOs, it should know that .1 sees
>>> nodes that it does not see itself, namely .2, .3, and .4. So, .5 should
>>> also select .1 as an MPR.
>>>
>>> This assumes that .2, .3, and .4 do not see .6, .7, and .8, which seems
>>> to be the case in the illustration.
>>>
>>> So, I am not sure whether forcing one MPR per interface would change
>>> anything and solve this particular problem. If there's a node at any
>>> interface that sees nodes that I do not see, I make this node an MPR for
>>> me. Hmmm. That should do the job, shouldn't it?
>>>
>>> So, my guess would be that we've discovered a bug in the olsrd
>>> implementation here and not a design error. Or am I missing something
>>> here?
>>>
>>> It's pretty weird that .1 and .5 see each other but do not mutually
>>> select themselves as MPRs.
>>>
>>> -Thomas
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> olsr-dev mailing list
>>> (spam-protected)
>>> https://www.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> olsr-dev mailing list
>> (spam-protected)
>> https://www.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-dev
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> olsr-dev mailing list
> (spam-protected)
> https://www.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-dev 





More information about the Olsr-dev mailing list