[manet] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-responsive-03

[Jaspreet Singh <[e-mail]>]

Dear Sir/ Ma'am,

I have many times requested for Unsubscribing from all MANET group
messages.  Please Unsubscribe me from this group, as I don't need any of
these messages.

*Regards,*


*Dr. Jaspreet Singh*


On Tue, 14 Apr 2026 at 13:10, Christopher Dearlove <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> If by look forward to you are suggesting that will happen, I don’t think
> so. But, yes, it would have been another logical division.
>
> On 14 Apr 2026, at 07:11, Henning Rogge <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Yes I agree,
>
> RFC 6130/7181 should have been split into more than 2 documents... but it
> would have been hard at the time the documents were written.
>
> One thing I would look forward to would be to split away the parts of 7181
> that deal with the NHDP metric extension and the MPR system. Both are
> totally independent from 7181 and should be an extension RFC for 6130
> instead of integrated into 7181 (in fact thats the way I have implemented
> them twice).
>
> Henning Rogge
>
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 7:35 PM Christopher Dearlove <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> An additional problem - which I think scuppers any plan of even a
>> complicated 7181bis - is that almost everything that you would want to roll
>> into 7181bis also applies to 6130 (NHDP). Unless you decided that 7181bis
>> defined both OLSRv2 and NHDP - and that greatly increases the complexity of
>> the task - would you duplicate material between 7181bis and a 6130bis? And
>> that doesn’t consider 5444 that is used by both, but also available for
>> other protocols, and similarly 7182. The only really easy ones are 7187
>> (OLSRv2) and 7466 (NHDP), but there are more to be considered, such as 7183.
>>
>> Funnily enough, the authors’ view was that they might have created more,
>> rather than fewer documents. OLRv2 (and similarly NHDP) could be described
>> in abstract terms a carrying certain information, then a separate document
>> describe how to represent that information in 5444 format. Thus allowing
>> alternative carriage of OLSRv2 in some systems. But that was not the IETF
>> way - it was novel enough splitting 5444 off as a separate document.
>>
>> On 13 Apr 2026, at 18:17, Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Just speaking as a WG participant, RFC 7181 seems pretty big and doing a
>> bis of it  like a big effort that would take some time. Meanwhile,
>> draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-responsive seems pretty short and simple. I
>> think the WG should consider the "responsive" draft separately. If it is
>> approved and if an RFC 7181bis project was started, the changes in the
>> "responsive" draft could be rolled into a 7181bis.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Donald
>> ===============================
>>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>>  2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
>>  [e-mail]
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 11:30 AM Christopher Dearlove <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> I was very much discussing the 7181/ OLSRv2 situation, complicated by
>>> the splitting off of NHDP/6130. New protocols should be in a number of
>>> pieces appropriate to their design. This is often one, but not always.
>>>
>>> On 20 Mar 2026, at 14:16, Templin (US), Fred L <
>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> Hi Abdussalam,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >> https://github.com/OLSR/OONF
>>>
>>> >> yes this is it
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I can now confirm that this builds correctly and seems to do the right
>>> things when run over simple networks. I will work on testing over more
>>> complex networks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you - Fred
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2026 8:43 PM
>>> *To:* Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]>
>>> *Cc:* Christopher Dearlove <[e-mail]>;
>>> [e-mail] List <[e-mail]>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] [manet] Re:
>>> draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-responsive-03
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Fred,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> and thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 4:40 PM Templin (US), Fred L <
>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Abdussalam,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >> I tried to get an implementation that was from the open source
>>> community but that implementation did not work.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Was this the one you were looking at:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://github.com/OLSR/OONF
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> yes this is it
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The most recent tag from that distribution is v0.15.1 tagged on March
>>> 19, 2018. I am unable to build from that tag due to compile time errors
>>> which seems a poor state for it to be left in. If there is another
>>> publicly-available OLSRv2 reference implementation I would be interested to
>>> hear about it, because it is not a good look for OLSRv2 to not have a
>>> publicly-available reference implementation **that works** for
>>> evaluation and experimentation by the community.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, other MANET routing protocols such as OSPF-MDR in quagga and
>>> Babel in free range routing are openly available for experimentation and
>>> even semi-production service in a form that works. There is also
>>> B.A.T.M.A.N which I guess is becoming known as a functional mesh networking
>>> service. There are probably others too which I would be interested to hear
>>> about. What has been your experience?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> yes agree,  it is important that we in IETF MANET WG look into the
>>> implementation of both OLSRv2 and AODVv2, as these were the first routing
>>> that was needed by this WG, however, there was in past meeting interest by
>>> our WG that we use the implementations to check its stability and
>>> successfulness.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> best regards,
>>>
>>> AB
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> manet mailing list -- [e-mail]
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> manet mailing list -- [e-mail]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>