[olsr-dev] Why are 1-hop routes with destination==gateway added

[Erik Tromp]

Thanks, I will.

Best regards,
Erik

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andreas Tønnesen" <(spam-protected)>
To: "OLSR development" <(spam-protected)>
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: [olsr-dev] Why are 1-hop routes with destination==gateway added


>
> Ok. But you should make sure that you only remove the GW in the cases
> where you actually have a direct link to the interface.
> Let us know how it works!
>
> - Andreas
>
> > Yes, in fact the problem behind this is that these direct routes cause an
> > interworking problem with OSPF by Quagga. You can read all
> > about it on this thread:
> >
> > http://lists.quagga.net/pipermail/quagga-dev/2006-May/004121.html
> >
> > Paul says that these direct, on-link routes are rather silly. I agree (to
> > some extent) with Paul but maybe I have missed something.
> >
> > Anyway, if you come up with something just let me know. For now I will try
> > if quagga interworks with OLSR by patching away the
> > generation of direct, on-link routes in OLSR.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Andreas Tønnesen" <(spam-protected)>
> > To: "OLSR development" <(spam-protected)>
> > Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 10:52 AM
> > Subject: Re: [olsr-dev] Why are 1-hop routes with destination==gateway
> > added
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Hmm.. it's been a long time since I messed with that code :-)
> >> I think this was done for multi-homed nodes so that you would
> >> add the address of the interface you could reach as the GW and
> >> the IP of the other interface as dst.(I can't look at the code
> >> right now)
> >> Not a 100% sure though - and you are probably right that it is
> >> not needed for "direct" links. But would it pose a problem in
> >> any cases?
> >>
> >>
> >> - Andreas
> >>
> >> > Hi Andreas,
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for the quick response!
> >> >
> >> > I agree absolutely that, in general, the 1-hop neighbors should be
> >> added.
> >> > But why add the routes with gateway being the same as the
> >> > destination? Those destinations would have been reached anyway. Note:
> >> if
> >> > gateway equals destination, that negihbor is already on the
> >> > same subnet as we are.
> >> >
> >> > I removed the code adding specifically the 1-hop neighbors with
> >> gateway
> >> > being the same as destination, and (as expected) all worked
> >> > well. At least, in my humble test setup. Maybe you know of a test
> >> setup in
> >> > which it would go wrong?
> >> >
> >> > Erik
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "Andreas Tønnesen" <(spam-protected)>
> >> > To: "OLSR development" <(spam-protected)>
> >> > Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 9:50 AM
> >> > Subject: Re: [olsr-dev] Why are 1-hop routes with destination==gateway
> >> > added
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi Erik,
> >> >>
> >> >> All routers need not be on the same subnet in a MANET.
> >> >> Therefore it is absolutley nessecarry to add 1-hop neighbors to the
> >> >> routing table - or all other route going via this neighbor will also
> >> >> fail(if the negihbor is not on the same subnet as we are).
> >> >>
> >> >> - Andreas
> >> >>
> >> >> > Hi all,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I have a small (maybe stupid) question.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In the function olsr_add_routes_in_kernel, there is special code
> >> that
> >> >> adds
> >> >> > 1-hop routes to destinations, the gateway being the
> >> >> > destination itself. These routes are consequently added first (and
> >> >> deleted
> >> >> > last in the function olsr_delete_routes_from_kernel).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > My question is: why are these routes added at all? Since these are
> >> >> 1-hop
> >> >> > neighbors, these destinations would have been reached
> >> >> > anyway, because the network routes to all connected networks are
> >> >> already
> >> >> > in the routing table by default.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Erik
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> > 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
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>