Subject: RE: [manet] Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf Problem Statement

From: "Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:54:05 -0000

> Can OLSRv2 on one MR realize somehow that all other Mobile Routers
have
> left the scene and no longer send TC messages when it's alone?  Is
there
> a form of unreachability detection or test or similar mechanism?

Typically TC messages (containing advertised neighbours) will cease when
there are no neighbours to advertise. (Two caveats to that. First there
may be a short period advertising an empty list, and second you may have
neighbours, but no advertised neighbours, in which case they will cease
earlier.) So far so good.

However if sending TC messages solely to advertise a network conection,
then currently there isn't actually an end condition to that specified.
It would be straightforward however to add a condition that a node MAY
or SHOULD (more thought needed on which is better, I can see arguments
both ways) stop sending TC messages when (or shortly after) it
recognises
that it has no neighbours (probably no symmetric 1-hop neighbours, but
again needs thought). But you don't win much that way, you need to keep
sending HELLO messages, and that's the greater overhead (they should
be more frequent).

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:02:25 -0000

From: Jean Lorchat [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>OLSR(v1) has support for "Host Network Attachment"
>but I think they only accomodate IPv4 prefixes.

OLSRv1 (RFC 3626) has a "for IPv6 replace IPv4 addresses
by IPv6 addresses" note. Interpreted strictly it actually
means that IPv6 HNA addresses have 128 bit address masks.
At least some implementers have replaced this by a 32 bit
prefix length (or 8 bits plus 24 bits reserved) as OLSRv1
is 32 bit word aligned, but it means there is a compatibility
issue.