[Olsr-dev] olsrd-0.5.3-rc1 feedback

Sven-Ola Tuecke (spam-protected)
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).

// Sven-Ola

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Aaron Kaplan" <(spam-protected)>
To: <(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
>> (like
>> 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,
>> even
>> openvpn could be used in theory[0]) in sane ways or implement some
>> "call
>> external script" mechanism maybe useful.
> Yup!
> 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?
> best,
> aaron.

More information about the Olsr-dev mailing list