[Olsr-users] Doubts about Willingness, MPR Selection and Routing.

[Alex López]

Just to confirm this, in the olsrd versions 0.6.x, the MPR selecion
algorithm doesn't work as it should and you are fixing this in the new
olsrd v2 versions?

2013/2/1 Ferry Huberts <(spam-protected)>

> MPR doesn't work properly in olsrd v1
>
> Henning is working on v2, in which this should work properly
>
>
> On 01/02/13 13:45, Alex López wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> After reading some documentation about OLSR and testing it with OLSRd in
>> OpenWRT I have some questions that I hope you can help me to answer.
>>
>> First of all, about the MPR selection. I read the algorithm described in
>> RFC 3626 but when I try it in my lab, it doesn't work as expected (or
>> maybe I don't understand it well), for example:
>>
>> - If set a 4 router network (R1, R2, R3, R4):
>>
>>                /--R2--\
>> R1 --------/          \---------R4
>>               \---R3---/
>>
>> Where *R1 and R4 cannot see each other directly and R2 and R3 are in the
>> same place. All routers have the same TX Power. Link Quality is set to 0.*
>>
>>
>> 1.- The thing is that it doesn't matter which Willingness I set to R2 or
>> R3 they are always selected as MPR (except when they have will=0). In
>> theory, if R2Will=6 and R3Will=1, shouldn’t be R2 the only MPR? Why to
>> choose 2 MPR instead of using only one and minimizing the flooding?
>>
>> 2.- Another thing I've found with this configuration is about the
>> routing. If I try to send a file from R1 to R4, all the data is always
>> going through R2 and is only going through R3 when R2Will=0. The routing
>> shouldn’t select the route taking into account the Willingness parameter
>> as is said in the RFC 3626?:
>>
>> /           3.2  Several topology entries may be used to select a next hop
>>
>>                 R_next_addr for reaching the node R_dest_addr.  When h=1,
>>                 ties should be broken such that nodes with highest
>>                 willingness and MPR selectors are preferred as next hop./
>>
>>
>>
>> 3.- In another different setup, where all the routers can see each
>> other, none of the routers is selected as an MPR, is this normal?
>> Shouldn’t be at least one MPR in a OLSR ad-hoc network?
>>
>>
>> Thanks in advance for the answers.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Ferry Huberts
>



-- 
Alex Lopez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.olsr.org/pipermail/olsr-users/attachments/20130201/f3144653/attachment.html>