[Olsr-dev] olsrd-0.5.3-rc1 feedback
Mon Oct 1 09:46:12 CEST 2007
Hello Aaron, Bernd, Hannes et. al,
I'm also overdue giving feedback - sometimes too busy. But I am
always reading your posts. Here are some points from my side.
* I've (re-)added my special stuff to the current CVS. Which
shrinks my list of patches to a very small set now. None of
that patches are meant for the current release. As ususal:
* As discussed, I re-add the metric value on the routes.
From my perspective it's simply convenient, because I can
look on the routing output and estimate at a glance if a
particular route is long or short. It's not really important,
if that's only an estimation IMO. Reason to re-add metric with
131-olsrd-policy-metric.patch for the Freifunk olsrd.
* Done some testing on olsrd-current and found nothing to
complain about. CPU saving is fine (~10-30% on my
slowest device, a 125 Mhz Broadcom/MIPS box). Really good.
* Got a one-time oops while terminating olsrd via Ctrl-C. But I
was not able to repeat that.
* My overall perception: I vote for publishing that as olsrd-0.5.4.
To answer Aarons question about tunneling and NAT. You vienna guys are very
special in this IMO. The majority of OLSR/Freifunk meshes uses NAT gateways
via default routes. Tunneling gateways or globally-valid-IP meshes are not
too wide spread. Partly my fault, because that's the standard plug-and-pray
technique offered with the Freifunk Firmware <ggg>.
One word about fiddeling with RFCs and doing other paperwork. There was an
attempt to re-invent olsrd in france (paris, last year or so). Laurent of
paris-sans-fil wrote about attending the circus. AFAIK that group posted
their paper-ware on different media (just google for olsr-v2).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Kaplan" <(spam-protected)>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 2:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Olsr-dev] Committed Patches
> <delay alert :) sorry for coming back to threads so late>
> On Sep 23, 2007, at 7:47 PM, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
>> On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 21:47 +0200, Hannes Gredler wrote:
>>> we should really fix the "default-gw does NAT issue"
>>> thoughts ?
>> Basically I consider the issue not in the scope of routing daemon
>> lots of other "people have funny setup things for whatever reason")
>> - if
>> only that I'm grown up with too much theory.
>> But plugins which implement various schemes (e.g. GRE, IPIP, hell,
>> openvpn could be used in theory) in sane ways or implement some
>> external script" mechanism maybe useful.
> I agree! Architecturally a plugin would be great.
> Then a GRE tunnel or an IPIP / whatever people want tunnel can be
> made easily.
> Hannes's proposition sounds good. But I would have to see it on paper
> or so.
> We should also check out how people are using tunnels so far in order
> to solve the default GW-does-NAT problem.
> How is it done in the Freifunk networks?
> Any other networks where you have NAT?
More information about the Olsr-dev