>> First, I believe it would be possible to want this feature enabled on non-wireless interfaces, so maybe instead of having >> a 'wireless' attribute, we could call it something like 'allow-disconnected-routes' or something like that. >> And maybe we should just always allow those routes to be added and not even bother with all the framework to set the flag?
Agree if we allow such routes for wired network. I don't know it is meaningful for wired network or not. >> At least some of the changes do not appear directly related to the 'wireless' >> flag. Maybe there was some cleanup included? If so, it would be nice if that were a separate patch. There are two things in the code changes: 1. the parameter 'wireless' (fea, ifmgr, mirror, etc.) 2. the execution part (fea, rib) in order to insert such route into kernel, the add route function call must declare such route as scope-link type route also, theoretically, the route -- destination net: 192.168.0.0/24 next hop: 192.168.0.1 interface: eth0 is a valid route for node 1 configure such as eth0:10.0.0.1/24. however, I don't think any wireless routing protocol generated such rotue now. * This work is done on Fedora core 16, so other system may not work. * 'wireless' parameter is for interface only, any vif under the interface will be treated as wireless vif Jiangxin -----Original Message----- From: Ben Greear [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 1:16 PM To: Jiangxin Hu Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Xorp-hackers] XORP enhancement for wireless mesh network routing On 06/01/2012 06:39 AM, Jiangxin Hu wrote: > Hi All, > Attached a patch for XORP 1.8.5 to support wireless mesh network routing. > The problem of XORP for wireless mesh network is routes in wireless > mesh netwrok are host routes, which means the next hop of a route is not in the same sub-net of the interface. For example, in a wireless mesh network which has two nodes, node 1 eth0 configured to 10.0.0.1/32 and node 2 eth0 configured to 192.168.0.1/32. > For node 1, the route -- destination net: 192.168.0.1/32 next hop: 192.168.0.1/32 interface: eth0 is a valid route. > Currently, there is only one wireless routing protocol (OLSR) > integreated in XORP which hit by the problem. But there are many people developing other wireless routing protocols for XORP now and will face this problem. > Jiangxin Thank you for the patch! I have a few comments before I apply this. First, I believe it would be possible to want this feature enabled on non-wireless interfaces, so maybe instead of having a 'wireless' attribute, we could call it something like 'allow-disconnected-routes' or something like that. And maybe we should just always allow those routes to be added and not even bother with all the framework to set the flag? At least some of the changes do not appear directly related to the 'wireless' flag. Maybe there was some cleanup included? If so, it would be nice if that were a separate patch. Finally, please submit patches in unified format 'diff -u'. It's even nicer if you can use 'git format-patch'. 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
