[Olsr-dev] LinkQualityMult problems in 0.5.6-r5

Mitar (spam-protected)
Sat Sep 5 14:03:07 CEST 2009


On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Henning Rogge<(spam-protected)> wrote:
> Setting a global "willingness" for routing traffic for a node would be
> (mostly) a sane thing.

Per interface please. If a node have multiple interfaces maybe it is
not anything wrong with one interface (like WiFi interface on which it
connects to other nodes) for routing much traffic but not other (like
UMTS uplink).

> You do it because you know something about your box, not because you fight with
> some neighbors. ;)

Currently we have not yet had such issues of unfriendly neighbors.
Only that people would like to setup nodes but would like to prefer
not to use a (VPN backup) uplink if it is not really necessary (like
that WiFi connections to other nodes gets really bad or nonexistent).
And I think it is good that users can decide how they want their node
to participate in a network.

> Another idea Markus and me discussed was to propagate your "lq-mult" (or
> whatever it will become) in the TCs through the network, so it's possible to
> debug global problems.

I think that LQ should not be send around premuliplied but it should
be send around as it really is so that network and connection issues
can be spotted. And then next to it some lq-mult or "willingness"
should be send. And then recipient node would decide (based on a
setting preferably agreed upon on a network level) to use it or not
when deciding on a route.

> And there could be some layer-8 discussions when people
> start to make a good link bad, just because they like their route to node X
> the other way around the block. ;)

Can we really fight this with technology? I think such issues should
be dealt with face to face. Not that you setup then setting on your
node to counter first setting and so on and on. But I am idealist. :-)


More information about the Olsr-dev mailing list