[OLSR-users] SLIP lines and OLSRD...

[Andreas Tønnesen]

The IFF_BROADCAST check is not performed if a broadcast address is
spesified. This change was part of 0.4.9 - is it not working as expected?

- Andreas

> I'm currently using OLSRD over 9600 baud point to point SLIP serial
> lines connecting about 30 nodes, and works fine so far.
>
> However, I had to modify the source code of the latest version: as
> someone points out in another message, a point-to-point interface does
> not have a broadcast address, and since OLSRD needs one, it complains
> and ignores it. The thing is that even if you specify a broadcast
> address for that interface in the configuration file, OLSRD keeps
> ignoring it. (this should be corrected IMHO).
>
> If you want the (utterly straightforward) patch, let me know.
>
> John Clark wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately I have not had the time to get back to this problem, but
>> I placed some slip
>> lines (sl0 ... sl15) in the list of interfaces which OLSRD was to
>> manage. OLSRD emitted
>> an error message to the effect that there was 'no broadcast' on these
>> interfaces, and ignored
>> them.
>>
>> On the hardware using slip, I have an older version of OLSRD running,
>> so my questions are,
>> is this problem an artifact of an old version, is there some
>> configuration parameter needed
>> with slip lines, or is slip just not in the picture as a supported
>> link method?
>>
>> Example slip based mesh:
>>
>> 192.168.1.100 10.13.0.1    <->  10.13.0.2    10.14.0.1 <-> 10.14.0.2
>>                                                              <->
>> 10.14.0.3  192.168.0.100 <-> 192.168.0.200
>>
>> The node which has 10.13.0.1 as an IP address on the slip interface,
>> also has
>> an ETHERNET interface associated with a 192.168.1.0 network.
>>
>> The node that has the IP addresses of 10.13.0.2 and 10.14.0.1 is
>> connected
>> SLIPwise on 3 interfaces, one connected to node 10.13.0.1, and two other
>> nodes, 10.14.0.2 and 10.14.0.3. Node 10.14.0.3 in turn is connected via
>> an ETHERNET interface to a 192.168.0.0 network.
>>
>> What I would like is that the 192.168.1.0 and 192.168.0.0 networks to
>> be told
>> to route via 192.168.0.100 and 192.168.1.100 respectively, and not
>> have any
>> details of the internal slip mesh connnections, paths through which
>> could change
>> over time.
>>
>> Thanks
>> John Clark
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> olsr-users mailing list
>> (spam-protected)
>> https://www.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-users
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> olsr-users mailing list
> (spam-protected)
> https://www.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-users
>


---------
Andreas Tønnesen
http://www.olsr.org