[Olsr-dev] SmartGW client side questions

[Teco Boot]

Sorry for not responding earlier. I think this smart-gw is
very useful. I don't have cycles to check it right now.

Op 28 apr 2010, om 14:43 heeft Sven-Ola Tuecke het volgende geschreven:

> Yes - of course. A question: do we need that tnl_$%abcd name for the 
> smargw-client tunnel interface? I only expect one iface (because only one 
> default-route-via-tunnel at a time").

One tunnel doesn't provide multi-path transport protocols. And cannot 
support seamless handover. For this, we need source address based routing, 
for outgoing tunnel selection. It's a next step.

I proposed BRDP based routing, where instead of a default route,
packets are routed to a GW that "owns the source address prefix".
This is proposed for IPv6 / Autoconf and more a long term solution.
http://tools.ietf.org/id/brdp
http://www.inf-net.nl/brdp.html
I think BRDP-based-routing can be used with the smart-gw-tunnels.
It solves ingress filter problems.

Regards, Teco.