[Mesh] From libre-mesh

[Pau]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 31/07/13 13:17, Mitar wrote:
> Hi!
> 
>> At this point I believe you understand why using a mesh dymanic 
>> routing protocol instead of BGP.
> 
> Not really. BMX6 cannot really measure any packet loss over Batman 
> clouds because all the packet loss is abstracted away anyway, no?
> So it sees whole Batman cloud as one hop? Still, for best
> performance, some information from WiFi layer below should be
> available to BMX6. This is why I am not sure if BMX6 is suitable.
> Probably it would be easier to adapt Batman itself to be able to do
> some simple L3 announcements on border nodes? It would have access
> to underlying data as well.

Yes, BMX6 will measure packet loss too. Border nodes will have BMX6
enabled, but each BAT-ADV cloud will have as many border nodes as
possible. As said, a BAT-ADV community can be a single building and
the next building will be another community, both can be connected by
several BMX6 links, and even the border-nodes can connect between them.

So you can end up with any kind of crazy topology which BGP cannot
manage as good as any mesh routing protocol. Also, probably most of
these links will be WiFi so having a protocol which bases its metric
in the packet loss would be a good idea.

> But yes, BMX6 can probably work as well and the job. I am just
> unsure if it is the best option for the given task. BMX6 was
> developed with some other design parameters (running on wireless
> mesh, measuring packet loss, finding the best path there) and now
> you are moving it to some other problem domain.

I don't know how deep is your knowledge about BMX6 but it is *NOT*
just designed for WiFi links. In our networks with bmx6 we are mixing
wired and wireless.

> Maybe BMX7 would be more suitable. :-) BMX7 which would talk with
> underlying Batman and collect real link quality information.
> Because if it does not talk with it, then maybe something like
> running cjdns on top of those Batman clouds to merge them together 
> would be more suitable? You would get crypto for free. And you
> would not care about physical topology anyway.

During the WCW Axel, Simon, Guido, Nico, Giohack and me were talking
about a small daemon named two-faces which will share metrics between
Batman-adv and BMX6 to be able to get more profit from this
dual-protocol setup. But for the moment it is not implemented so we
have to deal which what we have now.

> 
> Mitar
> 

I'm going in vacations for some weeks, so I don't think I will be able
to reply more mails.

Cheers.

- -- 
./p4u
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR+RP+AAoJEAX7rWpc+YnNPNIH/j7hCDlkGqviIrr8cEg1AJws
z1oxSn+AbWQCARLIWXkhDbOlFCJHnnbKFpl3pdyC0VOHWtHI4m7VBGzaQt0uu2Mb
RdpHplE2EeaoxZawYJk5GezfQUhlCH6Hcw3SsfKajDXkeZ0qp4n0Q4p3qpVfVZMd
FhsCQrjeuX1iucKYM3Ivso5psMT1P60EmBnYSDEG2Hd0Je94eIIiFMg/zNxdf/ls
tVfnZ3dcLwUxbNmGurS5U1TKIBgz3hj9kt6f5qJEyVN0PxCz7T25LE+/D5hssgoK
t5+n//Yg7NxkupjuQ7iqX9hdFHeFqtTbi3U7OT3ehMiWmJqgrnqjtr9vAzcHIzw=
=594B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----