[OLSR-users] Re: [olsr-dev] olsrd on multiple interfaces

Andreas T√łnnesen (spam-protected)
Mon Sep 27 19:51:35 CEST 2004


Hi,

After pondering a bit on the concept of using multiple interface with 
the same IP in olsr - it seems the idea of allowing this breaks the 
link/neighbor sensing scheme. Links sensing is based on the idea that 
every link is made up of one local IP and one remote. Replacing the 
local IP with some other mapping to a local interface will work(as done 
in the patch), but there is still the case of the remote IP. If we can 
no longer be sure the remote IP is uniqe for an interface on the remote 
host - the registration and maintainance of links becomes problematic.
I realize that in the given scenario things would probably work out - 
but if one imagines a scenario where a node might receive traffic from 
mulitple interfaces on a remote host, where the interfaces are using 
duplicate IPs, then stuff will get more complicated. So since this non 
RFC-compliant "extention" of the protocol will not operate in the 
general case I do not think I will include it in the main olsrd code. 
Also AFAICS this kind of solution will not work on other OSes where one 
cannot bind sockets to devices.
But then again - for the special scenario you are setting up Pawel, your 
fix is a solution and perhaps others will be interested in the patch. I 
know other people on this list are working on similar projects - is this 
something you guys would need? Perhaps you should consider creating a 
patched package for WRT systems?

Anyways, you seem to have an interesting project running - and I hope 
olsrd will work out for you despite of that anoying, arguing developer 
in charge ;-)

- Andreas

Pawel Foremski wrote:
> On Sunday 26 of September 2004 22:58, Andreas T√łnnesen wrote:
> 
>>Hi again,
>>
>>Thanks for the clarifications. So you are actually using the same
>>address on _all_ interfaces. Well - that kind changes the situation :-)
>>then I guess you really need this kind of functionallity offered by
>>olsrd as opposed to just changing a configuration as I initially
>>believed was the remedy.
>>I'll look into it and it will probably be included from the next
>>release. And again - I'm not arguing to make life hard for people, just
>>trying to reach the better solution ;-)
> 
> 
> I understand ;-), it's OK.
> 
> By the way I've been using olsrd for few days and I'd like to thank you for 
> the great software. Keep up the good work! :)
> 
> Kind regards.
> 



More information about the Olsr-users mailing list