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

[Christopher Dearlove <[e-mail]>]

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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 11:30 AM Christopher Dearlove <[e-mail] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2026 8:43 PM
>>>>> To: Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>> Cc: Christopher Dearlove <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> List <[e-mail] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> manet mailing list -- [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>