Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #8: Mesh routing protocols
Mitar <mmitar@gmail.com> Thu, 14 April 2016 09:19 UTC
Return-Path: <mmitar@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A484F12DA64 for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 02:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RowCTT166FLe for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 02:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x244.google.com (mail-ig0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7A2812D619 for <gaia@irtf.org>; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 02:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-x244.google.com with SMTP id g8so3848660igr.0 for <gaia@irtf.org>; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 02:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=LwT793qf4S7H7lT4xPG8YEI0FU+y+tdlZ+gnQRgbhEk=; b=B3o9wU+0D/dat4pMMnk8+PXLXpNs3wXaI/hxi/yzzAJV7yIGZAAEo1H5UXbrDtk3+B TBwpp2CRi70dTTwI3MhZDlEVwYiImNzKvNjY7oYZNXxgKAMCggsj82M8dn8C04tSANaw bCz5CiDe/faFIrRte6jjVgjN4GP8CHx6adFo+tTYU8G6EjddHsqnOUFlk571OjE6D2Ic Adp/poIWImibwo3EdjmTVqxCp2Shn2TWhIXj0yjaBcFq4sd6TRVLgfpjvU7q7i6EgIM5 08Vpe9RWVJRiQ5tx0JOHaOdDUIjtETF+UzNLC2zyQgK+rxmow3t9rAgGVdVly97RIaSL MWSw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=LwT793qf4S7H7lT4xPG8YEI0FU+y+tdlZ+gnQRgbhEk=; b=gSju463IhyuZu7AfhyKTd1JprVRHcnWyX9SZFHXCa2F16+1O5n1NvH2oFlMcpC94jk UjUdaaIUNgWO+S3hDNG5Vaw/8wRYg6IPinnQ/EBpuxTkcj8L3yDX39Yj5GyDrEgsxb0h re0y7JyifWh5b6DZY6opBgr13CvsX6/gMHoq8T82JRLUP7uPEAla1dt5X9mUjozj0bQm /6z01ES48IUA9uGNiLsZ615dQG4Hh+RF3hYpK2M9bkje9YP1dhKBCbkM2jJngZv+H+H9 lJxs4EZjMSFdyLqHiEXvszIFKKVioU6yPtcAWddRVC6Iz7x7B9cB7CS77oQiXzKZcFRH 8w+w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIy5WVWV3PxgXPaDY0/cDuWvEtjQDsnx6sh3MFCyXDjy2wGsAmjdo4LwkHoFQz0gCrgyxY1FADLsUAwMg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.232.47 with SMTP id tl15mr34032685igc.64.1460625542163; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 02:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.146.131 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 02:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <007601d194ca$9da2c590$d8e850b0$@unizar.es>
References: <007601d194ca$9da2c590$d8e850b0$@unizar.es>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 02:19:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKLmikM7m+5icS5qC4a7jL_iZy6J0O2939ddk9jmpTuMs2w+mQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mitar <mmitar@gmail.com>
To: Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gaia/2AB-gNROKKnhOSn7lqe1po7SbYA>
Cc: gaia <gaia@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #8: Mesh routing protocols
X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All <gaia.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/gaia>, <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gaia/>
List-Post: <mailto:gaia@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia>, <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 09:19:04 -0000
Hi! This is my take on improved routing protocols section: 7.1.2.2. Mesh routing protocols A large number of Alternative Networks use a customized version of the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR) developed by the olsrd open source project (http://olsr.org/). The OLSR protocol defined in [RFC3626] has been extended with the ETX metric (https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/~rtm/papers/etx.pdf) and other features for use in Alternative Networks, especially wireless ones. A new version OLSRv2 [RFC7188] has been starting getting traction in some community networks (https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2852742). B.A.T.M.A.N. Advanced (https://www.open-mesh.org/projects/batman-adv/wiki) is a layer 2 routing protocol, which creates one bridged network and allows seamless roaming of clients between wireless nodes. Some networks also run the BMX6 protocol [Neumann_a]. The protocol is based on IPv6 and tries to exploit the social structure of Alternative Networks. In [Neumann_b] a study of three proactive mesh routing protocols is presented, in terms of scalability, performance, and stability. Babel [RFC6126] is a layer 3 loop-avoiding distance-vector routing protocol that is robust and efficient both in ordinary wired networks and in wireless mesh networks. Comparison of performance and stability of routing protocols is an ongoing process and many routing protocols participate in regular event to compare, test, and cross-pollinate implementations at the yearly Battlemesh event (http://battlemesh.org/). Mitar -- http://mitar.tnode.com/ https://twitter.com/mitar_m