Subject: Re: [manet] A view on packet-BB

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 15:01:21 +0200

>>Not sure why it was ever there, because the mechanism to use source
>>routing with OLSR was never described in the draft. Feel free to write
>>an extension draft OLSRv2-with-sourcerouting

I disagree to use source routing for OLSRv2, but it was in OLSRv2-14
draft please read it again.

>>Can you state a reason why you think that source routing is interesting for
>> you? I >know it makes a lot of trouble, but whats the advantage if every
>> OLSR node (as an >example) has to store the whole topology anyways?
>>Henning Rogge

There are reasons for source routing as a protocol in MANET you need
to read DSR protocol, but source routing SHOULD not be use in OLSRv2,
as the authors included it in their draft-14, I think your question
should be for them not me. I written the interest in DSRv2 not in
OLSRv2-sourceRouting, please read my discussion again (see below).

Abdussalam Baryun,
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

> Hi Charlie, and All
>
> I don't mind to have DYMO and AODVv2 without divergence, just from the
> protocol name and draft-understanding, DYMO was derived from AODV+DSR,
> and from the change of name to AODVv2 it made me think more about the
> extending of AODV. Therefore, I may suggest that it is interested to
> see DSRv2 ( which I thought new DYMO may take that direction), and was
> thinking if the authors of DSR or others in WG are happy to extend
> that protocol.
>
> If we can get a new DSRv2 that is able to use RFC5444 or use a
> modified format of RFC5444, it will be great. Because if OLSRv2-15 is
> now deleting its source-routing option as was included in OLSRv2-14,
> and AODVv2 is not doing source routing, then it is interested to have
> a routing protocol that is able to source route.
>
> Abdussalam Baryun,
> University of Glamorgan, UK.
>