From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Axel Neumann Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] single IP for multiple interfaces Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:31:27 +0100 References: <47426F09.9060605@absorb.it> <200711201232.11894.axel@open-mesh.net> <4742C76A.6050404@absorb.it> In-Reply-To: <4742C76A.6050404@absorb.it> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200711201331.27288.axel@open-mesh.net> Reply-To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Id: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking On Dienstag 20 November 2007, rene wrote: > Hi, > > Axel Neumann wrote: > >>> There MUST be a different IP address for each BATMAN interface in the > >>> network (also if a single BATMAN node has more than one interface). > >> > >> Is this implemented like this (where?)? > > > > Yes it is implemented/designed like this. It operates on layer three and > > above. IP addresses are used to differentiate between different links to > > the same neighbors. For example two nodes A and B, each with two wireless > > interfaces 1 and 2. All interfaces operating in the same channel, bssid, > > ... How could node A differentiate between the link A1<->B1 and A1<->B2 > > if it is not aware of any MAC addresses. But even if it is aware of MAC > > addresses. How could it set up the routing table to ensure that a packet > > to a distant node C should be routed via B1 (and NOT via B2)? > > just by setting the interface to the way the package has to leave the > node? Just the same way olsr does, I'm not a protocol designer but don't > see any main reason why Batman shouldn't be possible to do it similar. IMO that does only work if the interfaces of a node are NOT connected to the same physical/logical link (e.g. B1 and B2 are operating on different channels or with different cell IDs,...). Otherwise specifying the outgoing interface is not enough. Even if node A has only one interface (A1). If there is a link A1<->B1 and a link A1<->B2 the problem remains: > > How could it set up the routing table to ensure that a packet > > to a distant node C should be routed via B1 (and NOT via B2)? The outgoing interface of node A is A1, for both cases. Setting the outgoing interface to A1 has no effect. Maybe there is a way to configure the next-hop-mac address instead of the next-hop-ip address. But then you rather have layer 2 routing and not layer 3. /axel > > > Actually, I did not even know that this is possible - is such a > > configuration proposed somewhere. I can imagine that this somehow works > > but how shure are you that this does not introduce any negative side > > effects? > > We are using this in Rostock since a while (on all WRAPs and on selected > APs) and it works very well. Side effects? Maybe, you never know for > sure, none recognized and I'm not deep enough into protocol designs to > answer this from a theoretical point of view. But it's a great feature > which makes Mesh networking much easier and the whole structure much > cleaner. > > Regards, > Rene > > _______________________________________________ > B.A.T.M.A.N mailing list > B.A.T.M.A.N@open-mesh.net > https://list.open-mesh.net/mm/listinfo/b.a.t.m.a.n