[Olsr-dev] SmartGW: GW side
Mon Apr 26 19:11:42 CEST 2010
> NIIT use the same IPIP tunnels as defined in the RFC. It's just an easier way
> to "create" them.
At least the 4to6 tunnel address space must be standardized, before it
can be used. The current used address space conflicts strongly with
other RFCs, implemented e.g. in the Linux kernel.
> No endpoint of the NIIT tunnels needs an IPv4 address. Even the normal IPIP
> tunnels for the default gateway need no IPv4 addresses.
But a least the client need a globally routed IPv4 address. With my
concept it don't. It only need private IPv4 addresses between the
gateway and the client.
> You just need an address for the local IPv4 network. Unless you want to run
> DHCP over the IPIP tunnel to get your IPv4 address from the gateway it will
> stay this way.
Your DHCP concept need a globally routed IPv4 address, too.
> And doing it this way would make IPv4 connectivity between mesh
> nodes very difficult.
Not all mesh networks need IPv4 connectivity between the nodes. In
Berlin I have never seen such connectivity, that can't easily converted
to IPv6 traffic.
And 4to6 tunnels aren't a migration path for old IPv4 mesh networks like
Berlin. In this mesh networks you need to run IPv6 and old IPv4 routing
4to6 tunnels are only a migration path for new mesh networks that need
IPv4 inter node connectivity like the *censored*.
> This is the first real argument (it only applies for IPv6 networks with IPv6
> uplinks)... but I think it's not good enough to replace the current working
> code with an untested new one (that does not even exist at the moment) for
Not replace, extend the current code.
> But I think we have to see how we can improve the gateway feature for 0.7.0.
OLSRv2 like "NIIT" would be never a real option for lazy Berlin. Only
for research networks, like BATMAN is.
More information about the Olsr-dev