Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 00:19:07 +0100 From: "Bruce M. Simpson" <bms@FreeBSD.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing. Message-ID: <481BA16B.9000803@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <481B6FCE.2080605@elischer.org> References: <20080430172705.2E3275AD6@mail.bitblocks.com> <4818BC79.40605@elischer.org> <20080502090200.GA57055@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <481B5733.7020503@elischer.org> <481B6FCE.2080605@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Julian Elischer wrote: > > OLSR is an overlay network Nope -- the express intention was that it could be used for basic IP connectivity, for mobile devices. In OLSR, every node is a potential IP forwarder unless it explicitly advertises itself as being unwilling to forward. > and any machine that participated must have a split personality. First > it must be able to think in terms of the basic local network, and it > must be able to think in terms > of the world from the perspective of the overlay. Applying routing policy gets more important at the border. The OLSR implementation in XORP is intended to give people a means of connectivity between MANET and non-MANET routing domains, by redistributing routes into the OLSR cloud. I daresay these capabilities will get more important, and relevant, to the MANET picture as time goes on, but it's best to leave them out of the operational picture for now, in my opinion. cheers BMS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?481BA16B.9000803>