Re: [manet] OLSRv2 futures

bebemaster <> Wed, 08 November 2023 13:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A851DC17C529 for <>; Wed, 8 Nov 2023 05:07:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qg7Q7GqPuSyT for <>; Wed, 8 Nov 2023 05:07:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2b]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCB72C170613 for <>; Wed, 8 Nov 2023 05:07:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-da041ffef81so7462212276.0 for <>; Wed, 08 Nov 2023 05:07:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20230601; t=1699448845; x=1700053645;; h=mime-version:to:from:importance:in-reply-to:subject:date :savedfromemail:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=Zjq3sHfFiPaBsBaetWxkRNyIE7di2bspU0p2aqh6srU=; b=MfXfaDjvCTIiUw2qAoZrYVOa5EI5p6PnsRreXXB0iyUKgHnwKdVgNmk+qI5hbEU8xW j0p1/UqNHIK0GL8dTHlgU1xRSX4J8BQL3qRv8NivG3Qo+C1IYFLUJHgeCCMAgFxIRKJ+ pEf84xEcIjBA49nKjpLS4DyyJXyKLamzBQMcbMMq2gHlphys5VDYy4zwjeIt3+7uQ9NX vW1wISy2qS0iGzwyKCVi5cABUexvhLJGDXX9s32LToMEJpFk2vrK8KIpY2nAU4GtvZKF CTjsH5eeGEgZ0/AeEIaPU40SAZkarykfn5YdpLeoz+xNMmK1t4JjXAPc/1QRbVZnTL/B ZV5w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20230601; t=1699448845; x=1700053645; h=mime-version:to:from:importance:in-reply-to:subject:date :savedfromemail:message-id:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Zjq3sHfFiPaBsBaetWxkRNyIE7di2bspU0p2aqh6srU=; b=gfVeS9Lwb1aNu3sEENn7kDBZaWEIU3ZEiT8o7MSeDf5VL9IomE/ENjx6kFT/bjm3hj ZLxaZW0f0+H8ACBBXaKmN9VOy6Kyk/+1NSYyywADwIPysSTJsffkIqCHarntz052ERJq VoN5NQzbhU6J6j/rmAS64PZAnTY5SAiUuCBS/WBV+74ZVQwvFMKE6xKKLu3qbeYkKYqG F2ty5LBkXtg7I+4yup+Mt9ODgSaeI3jYlOgNCrqrHJQodFsOrEL/yR+EMbbD/yBu+fga WhwYP4zSmQUuta0hMolUuTrcfXXYTLQoN3dNV/B8YBqCljwKaRZvtAenwLY5FFBjTGpW szKQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Ywo2HAhpAyOLOxb+WZWaUroMbEXlPRwUlIk3Rz+umc4W4KTZR1k jo3sArXKr352JST2TipnUXW2xAeVBf0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHX3MJYCmTFxpB4U6S4L/nQg1ocQlJl3PBCJfs3zL8l9m5u28jKtZM/TvLFdq+I5tWoux/MLA==
X-Received: by 2002:a25:c301:0:b0:da0:3c34:2bf5 with SMTP id t1-20020a25c301000000b00da03c342bf5mr1845532ybf.2.1699448844280; Wed, 08 Nov 2023 05:07:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id d135-20020a25688d000000b00d8168e226e6sm6449286ybc.47.2023. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Nov 2023 05:07:01 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2023 08:06:47 -0500
In-Reply-To: <>
Importance: normal
From: bebemaster <>
To: Christopher Dearlove <>, MANET IETF <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=""
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [manet] OLSRv2 futures
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2023 13:07:26 -0000

Pretty good list. If we are looking to modify OLSRv2 having variable  sending/forwarding TC rate per interface would be high up on my list of things to add, and perhaps not trivial.Justin
-------- Original message --------From: Christopher Dearlove <> Date: 11/8/23  7:55 AM  (GMT-05:00) To: MANET IETF <> Subject: [manet] OLSRv2 futures To summarise where I think things are with regard to OLSRv2, starting from the easiest - not necessarily the most important (if anything is).- A simple standards track document that adds permission to for a router to send one or more unscheduled TC messages (probably changing schedule) on learning of a new router in the network (on adding an entry to the Advertising Router Set). However, a complication is that the motivation for this is based on the next item, so how to package the two would be an issue, as there’s a standards track/informative mismatch. Probably end up repeating some material.- An informative document that explains how OLSRv2 (including NHDP) can be used in ways that allow more efficient use in some scenarios. I have notes somewhere that can expand on some of this. It could be considered as rationale for many of the design decisions. A possibly non-exhaustive list of these features and use is:  + The ability to work responsively, only sending messages when the situation changes. (This might need the first point above for ideal use.) Assumes a stable network, other than joiners/leavers and the changes they offer/require, and the ability to recognise local changes. (Or continue to use NHDP as usual.)+ The ability to change parameters dynamically. Enables features such as exponential backoff in stable circumstances, with reversion when changes occur. Similar to the above in some regards.+ Different parameters on different routers and different interfaces. The former is potentially useful when e.g. some routers are moving rapidly. Ideally some modelling would support this.+ The ability to set multiple TC interval times at different distances, implementing the concept of fisheye/HSLS routing. Requires some, not easily defined, network properties to be suitable (density largely).From this point down, there needs to be real motivation to consider them. (Also true above, but I think that might exist.)- A mechanism to allow a forgetful router to rejoin a network without waiting for timeout of its previous messages. Ranked lower than the above because it’s a change, and compatibility has to be considered.- A mechanism to allow a router to dump its topology information to a new neighbour for fast full joining. There are lots of questions here - solicited or unsolicited, message format (and how to make 5444 compatible when it expresses the relationship between two addresses, not a characteristic of one address), in HELLO message?And a long way down, and I don’t think there’s enough commitment from the WG, or even real use cases openly demonstrated:- Adding reactive features (RREQ/RREP messages) to OLSRv2. In principle this wants a reactive protocol, but as so much would need re-engineering, knowledge of AODV/AODVv2/LOADng might suffice. Although the technical problems with AODVv2 remain issues to be solved here. The basic concept is routers not prepared to do what’s needed proactively (though this has more than one level) but prepared to do some or all of the work reactively (also more than one level). The full generalisation is a form of policy-based routing.- Adding DTN features, with message store and forwarding. (I’m aware of some IPR here.)- Routing confidentiality. (I’m aware of some IPR here too.)_______________________________________________manet mailing listmanet@ietf.org