[OLSR-users] olsrd with 2 networks

Kosta Welke (spam-protected)
Wed Feb 8 14:44:42 CET 2006

Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 09:26 +0100, Kosta Welke wrote:

>> (if you feel olsrd -b is "unclean" somehow).
> No, that's actualy the clean solution IMHO. 

I agree.

>> However, if the network looked like this:
>> 10.0/16 ---box1--- 5/8
>> (which would mean that box1 and box2 are on the same layer2 net, but 
>> have completely different IPs and cant broadcast to each other using 
>> their usual bcast addresses) You have to fiddle with broadcast addresses 
> They could use use layer2 broadcasts. Do we want this?

olsr works completely on the IP layer (and I think thats a good thing).
The described problem only exists if only one of both sides uses -b, so no need to fix what ain't broken.

> That's actually one feature (IMHO) that you don't need NAT at all (which
> is the reason not mentioning it): Give one interface on each box a
> public IP address (if you really want to see it on the Internet and vice
> versa) and give all others private IP addresses (no IMHO we don't really
> have a shortage of IPv4 addresses but it is not trivial to get some from
> RIPE).

Seems like a good idea to me. The non-trivial part is tell olsrd which 
interface is the 'primary' one, because this is the one that is routable 
to the outside world.

I think what Sven-Ola Tuecke was saying is that if you have /32 
addresses and a default route (independent of your olsr network) and 
want to send to an olsr node to which you dont have a route, it gets 
send to the default route, which usually is an ISP.

This should not be a problem as the netmask doesnt really matter when 
you use the -b option.


More information about the Olsr-users mailing list