[Xorp-hackers] XORP enhancement for wireless mesh network routing

[Jiangxin Hu]

>> 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:greearb at candelatech.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 1:16 PM
To: Jiangxin Hu
Cc: xorp-hackers at icir.org
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 <greearb at candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com