[manet] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-eastlake-manet-babel-wi-fi-00.txt

[Christopher Dearlove <[e-mail]>]

I would say could be used that way. It would be up to either a private network to agree that or someone to standardise (in which I include experimental) that use for reference.

Are there any such implementations? My implementation (never made public, owned by my former employer) could have done so just by defining a new address class. I have no idea about others.

On 16 Jul 2026, at 18:09, Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]> wrote:



So based on RFC5444, then an address length of “5” would mean EUI-48 and an address length of “7” would mean EUI-64? Or something like that?

 

Are there OLSRv2 implementations that can operate based on MAC addresses?

 

Thank you - Fred

 

From: Christopher Dearlove <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2026 9:49 AM
To: Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]>
Cc: bebemaster <[e-mail]>; Juliusz Chroboczek <[e-mail]>; Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>; manet <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [manet] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-eastlake-manet-babel-wi-fi-00.txt

 

EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.

Strictly, it doesn’t. For reasons the actual definition of OLSRv2 and in particular the format in RFC 5444 only specifies IPv4 and IPv6. But to use MAC addresses all you need to do is just use them. The address length is included and you can just use that.

On 16 Jul 2026, at 16:54, Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin=[e-mail]> wrote:



Justin, I am interested in your statement that “Version 2 (supports) native mac addressing”. Is that written down somewhere, and is OLSRv2 already compatible with Wi-Fi mesh?

 

Thank you - Fred

 

From: bebemaster <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 11:49 AM
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <[e-mail]>; Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>
Cc: Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]>; manet <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [manet] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-eastlake-manet-babel-wi-fi-00.txt

 

I can't speak directly to ra-olsr, but olsrv1 vs v2. Version 2 provides a bunch of more advanced additions: metric routing, multiple interface support, message signatures, ipv6 and native mac addressing, dynamic timing among other things. The biggest difference isnt just the increased functionality but the design allowing for extensibility natively without breaking the base protocol or backwards compatibility. If some vendor wanted to add a new service or dns information into the routing (OLSRv2) or discovery protocol (NHDP) that can be done while maintaining base interoperability of the base protocol.

 

Justin Dean

 

-------- Original message --------

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[e-mail]>

Date: 7/14/26 12:54 PM (GMT-05:00)

To: Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>

Cc: "Templin (US), Fred L" <[e-mail]>, manet <[e-mail]>

Subject: [manet] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-eastlake-manet-babel-wi-fi-00.txt

 

>> Is a similar profile possible for other MANET routing protocols over
>> Wi-Fi mesh – for example, OLSRv2? Or is there something special about
>> Babel that makes it better suited for Wi-Fi mesh?

In the original 802.11s, there were two routing protocols: HWMP, which was
MTI, and RA-OLSR (a variant of OLSRv1), which was optional.  RA-OLSR
failed in the market, I'm not sure if it is still in the spec (I haven't
read the recent revisions of 802.11s).

What would an OLSRv2 variant embedded in 802.11s look like: in what way
would it be different from RA-OLSR?  (Real question, not rethorical,
I genuinely don't know.)

-- Juliusz

_______________________________________________
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]