From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <ordex@autistici.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:32:57 +0200
From: Antonio Quartulli <ordex@autistici.org>
Message-ID: <20110415083243.GA18748@ritirata.org>
References: <BANLkTik_+b9cNK0safmy76+gfjDB2MNDjg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTik_+b9cNK0safmy76+gfjDB2MNDjg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Batman-adv hna balancing
Reply-To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking
	<b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org>
List-Id: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking
	<b.a.t.m.a.n.lists.open-mesh.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.open-mesh.org/mm/options/b.a.t.m.a.n>,
	<mailto:b.a.t.m.a.n-request@lists.open-mesh.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.open-mesh.org/pipermail/b.a.t.m.a.n>
List-Post: <mailto:b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org>
List-Help: <mailto:b.a.t.m.a.n-request@lists.open-mesh.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.open-mesh.org/mm/listinfo/b.a.t.m.a.n>,
	<mailto:b.a.t.m.a.n-request@lists.open-mesh.org?subject=subscribe>
To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking <b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org>

Hi Gioacchino,

On ven, apr 15, 2011 at 10:07:13 +0200, Gioacchino Mazzurco wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> I am installing batman-adv on nodes on our mesh networks in Pisa, but
> i have a question
> 
> Here you can see our topology, there is two nodes at moment they are
> connected to the same switch and should see same hnas but they are
> announced mostly by one of the two
> http://eigenlab.org/batman-adv_status.php
> 
> If i turn off the cc:c8 node the hna pass to the other nodes but when
> i turn it on all hna pass on it
> 
> Why this? Is not better to balance hna announcing?
> 
> Very thanks!


What you are observing is part of a more general problem that we are
already taking into account: What to do if two nodes detect to be
connected to the same client (same MAC address). It is not a simple
problem and we are trying to figure out which could be a good solution.
(Ideas are welcome :D)

With the actual implementation, if I am not wrong, the last received OGM
that carries the client MAC address wins. Because there is not a real
mac conflicting handling procedure.

Moreover, in your case, you have a switch in between, so I can imagine
that the traffic is redirected to one or to the other node on the switch
basis depending on the packet destination. So, even with a mac conflict handling
procedure, I think that this situation would be a bit tricky to be
managed.

I hope I've been clear in what wanted to say. :)

bye

-- 
Antonio Quartulli

..each of us alone is worth nothing..
Ernesto "Che" Guevara