Re: [manet] OLSRv2 futures

[Henning Rogge <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 2:34 PM Christopher Dearlove
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> I’m fairly sure we considered that, but decided against that. The issue is that TC messages are forwarded, and don’t stay on the sent interface (if that’s even a meaningful concept). So if we sent TC messages at a different rate on different interfaces, that would only apply for one hop, thereafter the interface and the interval would be decoupled. So now we need to know why the idea, in order to decide what the point is.

Yes, that makes "per interface" TC rates/validities quite useless.

> So if we say we forward always, what are we achieving by sending at two rates? And if we want a split topology, we already have (experimental still) MT-OLSRv2 to use.

I have implemented MT-OLSRv2 twice, it works well enough... I am not
sure the "metric per topology" is always the best option, but it
works.

> Looking at RFC 7722, it doesn’t have message intervals per topology. I was going to suggest it could - and changing an experimental protocol is easier than changing a standard - but there are some issues there I think. But again, rationale.

This would also remove quite a bit of aggregation that you get by
combining data from all topologies into one TC.

Henning Rogge