[OLSR-users] Running two insances of olsr

Andreas Tønnesen (spam-protected)
Wed Jun 23 03:09:29 CEST 2004

Cyrille Chepelov wrote:
> Le Tue, Jun 22, 2004, Ã  04:06:10PM -0800, Andreas Tønnesen a écrit:
>>>, v4, eth0
>>>2001:7a8:29d4:0:2a0:24ff:fea6:57a0/64, v6, eth0
>>>2001:7a8:29d4::1/64, v6, eth0
>>>## fe80::2a0:24ff:fea6:57a0/64, v6, eth0 ##skipped: link-local
>>>##, v4, lo ## skipped: loopback
>>>## ::1/128, v6, lo ## skipped: loopback
>>>## fe80::2e0:98ff:feb5:18df/64, v6, eth1 ##skipped: link-local
>>>	# (yes, my eth1 is not used right now: just got around to
>>>	# checking that it's a prism54 and that's all I had the time to
>>>	# do)
>>>Now, for each of the specific three addresses above, create a listening
>>>socket. Have exactly one ipv6 per physical interface join the multicast
>>>group and send broadcast messages? Not sure. Initially we might just
>>>leave duplicate traffic, maybe we'd better have one ipv6 address per 
>>>network perform multicast duties. Or maybe the RFC covers this already.
>>>As you now know for each socket, whether it's supposed to receive v4 or
>>>v6 traffic, you can run the correct packet parser.
>>I am [NOT]following you here. Wouldn't this require binding muliple	
>>sockets to UDP/698? If one is to create one socket for every address on
>>the interface, you'll have to bind all of them to the same port for them
>>to receive the traffic... Or am I missunderstanding you here?
> Indeed, you need to bind multiple sockets to udp/698, which is fine as long as 
> no two sockets are bound to the same (address,proto,port) tuple. This is
> not 

But if that can be done then there is no problem in the first place?
Then the IPv4 instance of olsrd should be able to create it's socket
in paralell with the IPv6 instance...?

- Andreas

Andreas Tønnesen((spam-protected))
UniK University Graduation Center
University of Oslo

More information about the Olsr-users mailing list