[Olsr-dev] [olsr-dev] Quagga plugin fixes

[Hannes Gredler]

hi sven-ola,

tx for your detailed debug logs ...
i understand the problem now.
good news is that the fix is just a one-liner :-)

--- lq_route_hopcount_broken.c  2007-07-04 08:23:32.000000000 +0200
+++ lq_route.c  2007-07-04 08:24:10.000000000 +0200
@@ -376,7 +376,7 @@
       if (vert->next_hop) {
         edge->dest->next_hop = vert->next_hop;
       }
-      edge->dest->hops++;
+      edge->dest->hops = vert->hops + 1;
 
--

pls find attached the spf refactoring diff with the correct
hopcount calculation.

tx,

/hannes

On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 10:46:09AM +0200, Sven-Ola Tuecke wrote:
| Hannes,
| 
| compiled a debug version (with #define DEBUG in src/process_routes.c) with 
| and without spf applied and run it on a real node. I'll attach the output 
| to this posting. As you can see, the calculated "hops" value is different. 
| We have software, which depends on the hops value inserted into the routing 
| table as metric value (e.g. fftrace or OLSR-VIZ).
| 
| You may also notice the error msgs regarding 104.129.44.7/255.0.0.0, which 
| obviously is a misconfigured node currently spamming our logs with that 
| wrong HNA4 config.
| 
| Ah - here's a traceroute to an arbitrary node to verify the hops count 
| determinded by the spf-less code:
| 
| (spam-protected):~# traceroute -w 2 -n 104.193.0.42
| traceroute to 104.193.0.42 (104.193.0.42), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
| 1  104.65.0.37  5.917 ms  8.16 ms  2.886 ms
| 2  104.0.0.5  3.625 ms  3.694 ms  3.368 ms
| 3  104.0.0.9  6.106 ms  12.025 ms  11.293 ms
| 4  104.0.4.65  20.216 ms  8.162 ms  24.186 ms
| 5  104.0.0.51  10.128 ms  22.253 ms  22.241 ms
| 6  104.135.0.1  11.359 ms  10.417 ms  45.901 ms
| 7  104.192.192.225  21.499 ms  13.117 ms  14.088 ms
| 8  104.192.192.81  16.874 ms  26.452 ms  21.689 ms
| 9  104.193.0.42  50.032 ms  20.169 ms *
| 
| HTH, Sven-Ola
| 
| "Hannes Gredler" <(spam-protected)> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
| news:(spam-protected)
| >
| >
| >Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
| >>On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 10:25 +0200, Sven-Ola Tuecke wrote:
| >>[...]
| >>
| >>>the routing-cleanup-Patch changes the old function-table-hookup method of
| >>>quagga to a more simple approach (_one_ function pointer suitable for
| >>>chaining). This may need mergeing.
| >>>
| >>>Because of several fixes I change the status of the routing-cleanup and
| >>>policy-routing patches from "experimental" to "recommended-for-testing". 
| >>>My
| >>>current patchset for olsr-0.5.0 is located here (100* - 170*):
| >>>
| >>>http://download.olsrexperiment.de/sven-ola/nylon/packages/olsrd/files/
| >>
| >>
| >>120-bmf-1.5.patch and 130-httpinfo-bufsizefix.patch are in (and
| >>100-cvs.patch trivially too).
| >>160-nameservice-cleanup.patch changes only whitespace (or not)?
| >>
| >>Perhaps Immo can comment on 140-routing-cleanup.patch and put it in his
| >>SVN repo.
| >>Or someone in Vienna looking after the border router can merge the most
| >>recent version from the SVN repo and the above patch and use it in RL.
| >>
| >>150-policy-routing.patch includes two functions from busybox - which is
| >>GPL. So I'm quite reluctant to merge it into the CVS. I'm more thinking
| >>about converting (at least for Linux) the ioctl() to netlink sockets
| >>even if it doesn't allow using a different routing table than the
| >>default one. And IIRC it didn't work for me the last time I tested it.
| >>Have to try again.
| >>
| >>170-olsrd-nameservice-latlon.patch looks simple and nice.
| >>
| >>
| >>>One note: 110-spf-refactoring is excluded currently due to wrong metric
| >>>calculation (which is a minor bug - we maybe simply tolerate this, CPU
| >>>saving is approved and fine).
| >>
| >>
| >>Hmm, Hannes, can we fix that minor bug?
| >
| >i am still not 100% sure what the problem is.
| >i got an email from sven-ola and i interpret it either as
| >
| >1. routes with a hopcount of > 3 should not be installed in the kernel
| >2. routes with a hopcount > 3 should be installed with a metric of 3 in 
| >the kernel
| >3. something completely else
| >
| >sven-ola - can pls you clarify ?
| >
| >/hannes
| >
| >-- 
| >Olsr-dev mailing list
| >(spam-protected)
| >http://lists.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-dev 



| -- 
| Olsr-dev mailing list
| (spam-protected)
| http://lists.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-dev
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: spf-refactoring.diff.gz
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 8767 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.olsr.org/pipermail/olsr-dev/attachments/20070704/42368309/attachment.obj>