Subject: [manet] (no subject)

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 14:59:57 +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.