RE: [manet] DYMO and other routing protocols

["Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)" <Chris.Dearlove at baesystems.com>]

> OLSRv2 document says it's proactive but I think an OLSRv2
implementation
> must be able to obtain a route if it receives a app packet whose dst
it
> doesn't know, and if it doesn't have a default route.

Not in that way.

Using the protocol as to be standardised, if an OLSR (v1 or v2) node
receives a packet from destination it doesn't know, it does nothing
to find that route.

There is allowed to be responsiveness (a term we use as say
reactiveness would be confusing) in the protocol at the signalling
level. If an OLSR (v1 or v2) node receives a HELLO message containing
information about a neighbour it's never heard of, it doesn't
have to maintain its current fixed schedule to send a HELLO
message containing this extra information, but can do so early.
This will accelerate what you want here, and may even look reactive.
But it's more than just subtly different. A node that wants to
find node X can't make that happen, it has to wait for node X to
inform it (directly or, more usually, via other nodes).

> Similary, DYMO says it's on-demand but it should advertise RREP (or
> RREQs) periodically if it needs to maintain up to date information at
> all times.

But maintaining up to date information about all destinations at all
times is not necessarily desirable. (Talk to 6LoWPAN people about this,
for example.)

********************************************************************
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.
********************************************************************



_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet