[Olsr-dev] LinkQualityMult problems in 0.5.6-r5

Henning Rogge (spam-protected)
Sat Sep 5 14:08:09 CEST 2009

Am Samstag 05 September 2009 14:03:07 schrieb Mitar:
> > 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).
Per interface would be possible too.
> > 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.
As long as they are forwarding packages for the rest of the network, yes.

> > 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.
a premultiplied value should be in there to make sure that everyone is using 
the same "cost" for a link. If you don't guarantee this on the network you get 
stable routing loops... lot's of them.
> > 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. :-)
My idea was NOT to fight this with tech, just give the people the tools to 
detect what's happening in the network and let layer-8 (the people !) deal 
with it off the net.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.olsr.org/pipermail/olsr-dev/attachments/20090905/45238a1b/attachment.sig>

More information about the Olsr-dev mailing list