On 06/13/2011 01:01 PM, Philip Hugg wrote: > Hello Ben /all > > I have attached the modified file 'topology.cc' that contains the > changes I've made > in the attempt to make OLSR more stable. Unfortunately, there are still > problems > with the OLSR but at least we are one step closer. > > Tested Topologies: > > 1) 9 nodes inline (wireless) > n9 - n8 - n7 - n6 - n1 - n2 - n3 - n4 - n5 > > > 2) 16 nodes, in 4x4 grid (wireless) > > n1 - n2 - n3 - n4 > n5 - n6 - n7 - n8 > n9 - 10 - 11 - 12 > 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 > > where, N1 is nei with N2, n5, n6, > N2 is nei with n1,n3,n5,n6,n7 > N3 is nei with N2,n4,n6,n7,n8 > ... > N16 is nei with n11, n12, n15. > > Topology is stable however a ping from N1 to N16 may not take the > shortest path > (n1-n6-n11-n16) which is 3 hops. Instead, it may follow path from > N1-N2-N7-N12-N16 (4-hops?). > When I re-issue the ping many times, it may take a different paths.
I'm not sure how OLSR is supposed to work exactly, but that does sound buggy. Could you open a bug with that test case and results? > > 3) Mobility test: 9 nodes inline (as above). > When moving N9 from N8 to N7 until we get > > N9 > | > N8 - N7 - N6 - N1 ... > > In this case, OLSR asserts. Can you open a bug with the test case and assert message? Might help the next person to attempt this... > These are some of the scenarios I used to find the bugs. However, I was > pulled off > this work and assigned something else. I just thought I would contribute > my findings > if anyone want to continue. Thanks for the patch. But, any chance you could generate a unified patch, ie: diff -u or something like that? That's a lot easier for me to read. If you don't have time to open these bugs or generate a new diff, let me know and I'll take care of it. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear <[email protected]> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com _______________________________________________ Xorp-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers
