Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR
Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com> Tue, 22 March 2022 08:39 UTC
Return-Path: <hrogge@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 493993A0CA8 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 01:39:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 JLLgb_rO0WHm for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 01:39:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x230.google.com (mail-lj1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::230]) (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 A5D203A0D6E for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 01:39:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x230.google.com with SMTP id c15so22973183ljr.9 for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 01:39:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fx1rQU9j8SJ1+FsvBdB92AjCBQ2+T2e2ol2ZJ1qTn6Y=; b=iq/RXSy1j6a76I7393ykGp9rHBTNrHN7EwWdkMiSbDGq8dstic18BRtZlalHzzTl9/ NoQV47FAYt25ENKN1T8TlAZLes+zp8TeQDgrJvn+Myg/JWwzLTxXHkvlxZmVOAnl8TIi ozQp91UfqUwrIy8WnFsYHys4pk2ZjBJNpz3RisF8K+2EDHoRYXjdKhfcyZHQabciQcLR kNAD5HYWIU43fv3bEP6kU+vMN6wzHxXqgWQK/yMKYycHZhFvmlnUaNL9tCt1L4qsOBgY FyK7dO5pS3i7WLmETJT86U7M8gcYyZbrWIh9e5OveSbRsEK//NjkUxEeKjiCiPsHRz7c EcrQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fx1rQU9j8SJ1+FsvBdB92AjCBQ2+T2e2ol2ZJ1qTn6Y=; b=TRmADBsorjWzeY4ly/WVoX3UCJecb41FXAFOIyI4oFVWPU7W5nBtOydoEXYre66saj X7wptgD81e96KmPOxjI2vi6Pa7nt6ULNIGjvGxDyRN2+0DTwOadsdndY8nENpthFAEx0 wy9mFbOwrehi/D5fWUgcdP7iPpKlWfxK0SPBAFBK1rCkz/d82TWMwvJdZAhdU0lZPVG5 3bA9MIQfRJpc0D6XJTX3xeg+MTAVM/D0LeZYOkm4VnI4qgLCnWmqz+8AE+7aOHirKiAV +EgZdItsJB27DDvF/UkRpIiJl107FH0KEMYyy0Gb/A8l8CFwvbmOnRFA+f4BGbpAw0u7 EnOQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532LJjXAuktaL1CQDpYosjK8GocojaNvi1v1M2aRNhRJQ9QgCkcW epFa14SdfkQOuvnZ43y6TjVsjUyk7pZeg8i6ebhxpcNl
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy8xHIh/tAM3F+MtoJGYF+Bgl7UVSRJyXr/2Vnscb0x8nwRRnzImVY5FaRPurrer0U50h8dF94GNkjHcFfVtfI=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:102c:b0:249:78bb:375f with SMTP id w12-20020a05651c102c00b0024978bb375fmr10243972ljm.281.1647938370192; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 01:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAGnRvuo36vQ8=ij+T2u-uyVNOAWx7Bkdrd9gLon20+dq_0XDiA@mail.gmail.com> <4E684853-DD75-4E36-B738-F9533E59F59A@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E684853-DD75-4E36-B738-F9533E59F59A@gmail.com>
From: Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 09:37:47 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGnRvurZAiO6zDVTajnD4Usgw4XnaCwFSwaUqzmRMR7GzR_QKA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christopher Dearlove <christopher.dearlove@gmail.com>
Cc: MANET IETF <manet@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/Buz46WUUOrUo-OKkwUHwyFCcSgU>
Subject: Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/manet/>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 08:39:40 -0000
My point about this issue is that as soon as the router knows that there is a better way to a one-hop neighbor than the direct one, it needs to stop using the link neighbor for flooding. But this is not possible based on NHDP information, only with the help of the full routing graph... which gives quite a few additional challenges because of the cyclic dependencies. It's the same both for TC flooding and Multicast forwarding. Using a VHF connection to flood them is a waste of precious (VHF) airtime if we have a multihop UHF connection. It's just getting worse when we add userspace (multicast) traffic to the issue. Henning Rogge On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 9:23 AM Christopher Dearlove <christopher.dearlove@gmail.com> wrote: > > Flooding is done over the VHF interface because the whole point of flooding is to reach everyone. And there might be some routers you can only reach using the VHF interface. If you know that you can always reach someone using only UHF flooding, and you consider that flooding via VHF is a disaster, why is it one of your Manet interfaces? Or if you want one hop transmission but not MPR selection why not set willingness zero (never) on that interface? > > > On 22 Mar 2022, at 06:31, Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 7:17 PM Christopher Dearlove > > <christopher.dearlove@gmail.com> wrote: > >> This depends on how you set up your link metrics. Flooding MPRs have > >> the option to use or not use link metrics. But if your interfaces are different > >> enough that you’d rather use multiple hops on a better interface rather > >> than fewer hops on a poorer interface, then you should be using link metrics. > >> If you aren’t, you will have problems. (They probably show up even faster > >> with routing.) > > > > I don't think metrics can resolve my problem. The problem arises from > > calculating the MPRs just from the 2-hop neighborhood. > > > > Let me sketch the problem.... imagine you have a Mesh with both VHF > > (slow long range) and UHR (fast short range) radios. > > > > Now imagine your router R has a neighbor A on VHF, which is two-hop > > reachable on UHF... if A also has a neighbor even further away, A will > > ALWAYS be a MPR, because the neighbor of A is at least three hops away > > over UHV. > > > > Unicast routes will still flow over the UHF network, but flooding will > > be done over VHF, which is a problem. > > > >> And so the problem here is with that SMF predates link metrics, and hasn’t > >> been updated. It was even worse when I - and others - tried multicasting > >> by intercepting packets in the stack, wrapping them up as a new OLSR (v1) > >> message type and reinjecting into UDP (OLSR port), plus the reverse at > >> reception. Fun days. > > > > The OLSR implementation from olsr.org has something like this called > > BMF... it was a disaster. ^^ > > > > Henning Rogge
- [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Henning Rogge
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Adamson, Robert B CIV USN NRL (5522) Washington DC (USA)
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Henning Rogge
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Christopher Dearlove
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Christopher Dearlove
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Henning Rogge
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Christopher Dearlove
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Christopher Dearlove
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Philippe Jacquet
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Henning Rogge
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Philippe Jacquet
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Christopher Dearlove
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Henning Rogge
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Philippe Jacquet
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Christopher Dearlove
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Henning Rogge
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Christopher Dearlove
- Re: [manet] SMF in Manet and MPR Adamson, Robert B CIV USN NRL (5522) Washington DC (USA)