Subject: [manet] Draft update

From: Christophe Jelger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:16:02 +0100

Hi all,

I submitted an updated version of our MANET ADDRESS AUTOCONF draft. It 
is available at the following address :

http://clarinet.u-strasbg.fr/~jelger/draft-jelger-manet-gateway-autoconf-v6-01.txt

We tried to reflect some of the comments we got from MANET members.

Below is a short list of modifications from the previous version. I also 
give some answers to comments we got from MANET members.

Regards
Christophe Jelger

-----------------

Main changes :

- the exchange of GW_INFO messages is not any longer based on a 
DSDV-like protocol
- the LNK 3 bits field has been suppressed
- periodical sending of GW_INFO messages is only done by gateways - a 
node simply forward an updated version of the message it has decided to 
select to build its IPv6 global address --> this method leads to prefix 
continuity
- different algorithms are proposed in order to update the selection of 
the upstream neighbor (the node from which GW_INFO is taken)

Replies to comments of MANET members :

- maintaining prefix continuity is very simple, it is inherent to the 
protocol operation itself
- if a node decides to always choose the closest gateway (the F_DISTANCE 
algorithm), prefix continuity is still valid. The main drawback is that 
a node may have to frequently change its global address
- direct "ad hoc" routing between nodes with different prefixes is 
allowed --> with proactive protocols, there would be a /128 entry for 
each ad hoc node ; for reactive protocols, a path accumulation paradigm 
as proposed in the new AODV draft would allow direct routing
- prefix continuity avoids the need of a routing header
- prefix stability (F_DISTANCE_STABILITY algorithm) does NOT lead to 
more frequent prefix changes : the goal is to minimize these changes !
- with proactive protocols and F_DISTANCE_STABILITY algorithm, routing 
may not always follow shortest-path to gateway (if shortest-path 
includes nodes with different prefixes)
- with proactive protocols and F_DISTANCE algorithm, routing always 
follows a shortest-path which may be different than shortest-path 
computed by the routing protocol

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

---

From: Li Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:08:05 -0500

I have a few questions on RFC 3626 OLSR. Your help is much appreciated.

(1) MID message. For a node with multiple interfaces, is the MID sent on
each interface, or
only on one interface? I don't see anything in the RFC saying about this. I
may have missed 
it. 

(2)  In section 6.1, Hello message format, under one "link code"  we may
have multiple 
"neighbor interface addresses", does it mean that if several neighbors have
the same
"link type" and "neighbor type", you'd summarize them and place them all
under the same
link code? 

One link can have only one neighbor interface address as defined in the
link set, is that 
right? 

(3) When a node just comes up, its link set and neighbor set all empty, the
node is 
sending the first Hello message. What should it send in this message? Only
the message
header, no body? Or in the body place Htime, willingness and link code of 
"UNSPEC_LINK, NOT_NEIGH"?

Thanks,

li li