[Olsr-dev] SmartGW: GW side

[Alina Friedrichsen]

> 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
parallel.
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 
> 0.6.0.

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.

Alina