[OLSR-users] Re: routing if hna (0.0.0.0) is < 3 hops and host is > 5 hops

[aaron]

each of our gateways uses openvpn to a central (cable and wlan connected)
border gateway. IMHO this is how it should be done.

on the gateway:
route delete default gw
route add -host bordergwIP nexthopIP  
start openvpn 

on the border router:
start openvpn for the gateway

voila!

using tha cable connection while still maintaining a coherent IP space.

cheers,
aaronh.



On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 09:03:18AM +0200, Andreas Tnnesen wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> While your idea is interesting, there are multiple problems:
> 
> - We have no way of knowing if a gateway is implementing NAT. That
>   means that we have no way of knowing if it supports "real" routing
>   into the manet even if the addresses used are global. Therefore host3s
>   gateway might not support "reverse routing".
> - We have no way of knowing what router incoming traffic will be routed
>   by into the manet. The traffic to host3 might very well be routed back
>   via the GW host1 sent it, or even worse, by a gateway further away.
> - To make sure we can control routing back into the manet we must do
>   something along the lines of subnetting within the manet. This means
>   nodes must configure/reconfigure IPs based on the nearest GW. Not very
>   easy - it would cause much more damage then good IMO.
> 
> However, in IPv6 nodes might configure themselves with one IPv6 address
> pr. gateway. This way a sender can in a way control by which GW packets
> are supposed to be routed back into the manet. Still this assumes that
> a connections dest address is dynamically changed when the topology
> changes which would probably cause TCP issues AFAIK. Also this change
> would have to be transparent to applications...
> 
> Anyways, my reaction is that such a solution is very difficult to
> design if you would want a generic solution and not a very
> special-purpose solution for a spesific scenario/network.
> 
> At least that's my 0.02$ :)
> 
> - Andreas
> 
> Andrew Hodel wrote:
> >Also should note that the implementation should check for a routable
> >IP, i.e. not RFC1918.
> >
> >
> >
> >Andrew
> >
> >On 7/12/05, Andrew Hodel <(spam-protected)> wrote:
> >
> >>I have a suggestion that seems would be best in my scenario.
> >>
> >>Consider a network with multiple hna nodes to the internet (0.0.0.0).
> >>I want to ping host3 which 6 hops away from me.  I am 2 hops from an
> >>HNA node and host3 is 1 hop away from another HNA node.  Perhaps we
> >>could configure nodes to route these packets over the internet (or
> >>whatever hna to hna is) instead of taking a 6 hop route directly over
> >>the mesh.
> >>
> >>This would of course be a parameter you configure on the hna nodes.
> >>It seems this would effectively erase all routes greater then X number
> >>of hops if other nodes were closer to another HNA node?
> >>
> >>On each HNA node you could have a link cost parameter which is
> >>relative to the cost of using a 6+ hop path on the mesh, or going
> >>directly over the internet...
> >>
> >>This would sure help routing table sizes in mesh networks...
> >>
> >>Please comment, improvise :)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>Andrew
> >>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >olsr-users mailing list
> >(spam-protected)
> >https://www.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-users
> 
> -- 
> Andreas Tønnesen
> http://www.olsr.org
> _______________________________________________
> olsr-users mailing list
> (spam-protected)
> https://www.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-users
> 

--