[mesh-dev] Notes on babel and bmx6

After playing with bmx6 for a while I thought I'd look more into babel. I've been trying to figure out what we'd need in order to use babel for the firmware. Here are my thoughts: Each node has an IPv4 subnet and an IPv6 subnet. The IPv4 subnet is assigned using makenode. The IPv6 subnet is assigned using makenode, randomly using generate-ipv6-address from http://www.pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr/~jch/software/files/ The IPs and subnets are statically configured in openwrt config for each node just like they are in the old sudomesh firmware, and each node assigns IPv4 and IPv6 addresses to clients using dhcp. All nodes have their own subnets and run dhcp servers (as opposed to the old firmware where only internet-connected nodes ran dhcp). If tunneldigger succeeds in establishing a tunnel, the node becomes an internet gateway and announces its route to the internet using: babeld -C 'redistribute if eth0 metric 128' mesh0 To begin with we can base the metric on something like the average of the upload and download bandwidth limit on the node maybe? I'm not exactly sure how this metric stuff works for these manual route announcements. I assume the specified metric is the base metric and then normal babel metric calculations happen on top of that? In the longer term we could create a babel extension that attaches information to route announcements about delay to the vpn server and currently available internet/tunnel bandwidth (averaged since last router announce). We can see how the babel diversity routing extension is implemented and base it on that: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chroboczek-babel-diversity-routing-00 I'm not sure how we'll measure available bandwidth on a live connection without saturating it? Maybe we can instead measure whether the bandwidth is currently saturated by looking at how many packets are getting queued/dropped? We can also do something even simpler and look at current bandwidth usage vs. the user-selected bandwidth limit. If we do this then for nodes with no bandwidth limit, we'd have to measure the available bandwidth e.g. the first time the node finds an internet connection. We could just skip this feature in the first firmware version and require a user-selected bandwidth limit, but then we run the risk of the user selecting a limit that's higher than their available connection speed. In the future we can also replace tunneldigger with something using foo-over-udp, but I think tunneldiggger with the "only try to connect when a ping succeeds"-addition is good enough for now. I must say that the more I look at it the more I'm liking babel. It seems to me that bmx6 has several oddities: * Can't do IPv4 and IPv6 at the same time. * Can't have several nodes announcing the same route (e.g. to internet) * Instead uses tunnel announcements for internet gateway selection, even though this adds the extra overhead of having a tunnel from each non-internet-connected node to a internet-connected node for no apparent reason. The overhead might no be bad but the plurality of tunnel interfaces makes debugging kinda confusing and it just seems... dirty. * The weirdness with different nodes ending up on different IPv6 subnet. Are there any advantages to using bmx6? The only one I can think of right now is that it already has some internet bandwidth metric stuff implemented, but on the other hand babel has its diversity routing metric which is probably going to be important for us in the future if we don't want to loose a lot of bandwidth on multi-hop routes. Does babel have any problems I haven't considered? Thoughts? Comments? Anything I overlooked? -- marc/juul