From: "Linus Lüssing" <linus.luessing@c0d3.blue>
To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking
<b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org>
Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [PATCH] batman-adv: introduce "noflood" broadcast flood prevention option
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 18:01:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190430160121.GC5267@otheros> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cb27fa9e-c7d2-db51-6f47-c717612b82af@darmstadt.freifunk.net>
On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 09:04:19PM +0200, Martin Weinelt wrote:
> We have been using the early noflood and DHCP snooping patches from
> Linus since roughly 2018/04. They were based on sockmarking packets that
> should be handled by noflood. This resulted in quite some amount of
> ebtables rules on our gateways, that marked addresses within DHCP ranges
> for noflood, since they were very likely already snooped. The result can
> be seen in graphs I provided to Linus back then, that are now visible at
> https://www.open-mesh.org/projects/batman-adv/wiki/DAT_DHCP_Snooping#Result.
Though to be fair, I'm expecting similar results with the DAT DHCP
snooping + pending DAT cache/DHT split patches. At least the
Total->unanswered->ok->last-reply->0...30min. and
Total->answered->"via DAT BCAST" in the link should go
away then (90.09% of all broadcast flooded ARP Replies in this link).
So while that was the main use-case for me before the discussions
we had last year on how to improve DAT, it's now more a minor one
for me. Though it would still be nice to have / work towards a zero-broadcast
mesh as RFC7772 for instance explains that frequent broadcasts
have a quite significant impact on battery power for small, mobile
devices. And the noflood option would be a quick and easy option
for us for now to achieve this for ARP and other packet types.
[0]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7772
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-30 16:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-26 17:12 [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [PATCH] batman-adv: introduce "noflood" broadcast flood prevention option Linus Lüssing
2019-04-26 21:56 ` Marek Lindner
2019-04-27 2:38 ` Linus Lüssing
2019-04-27 2:53 ` Linus Lüssing
2019-04-28 17:04 ` Sven Eckelmann
2019-04-28 19:04 ` Martin Weinelt
2019-04-30 16:01 ` Linus Lüssing [this message]
2019-04-30 16:07 ` Linus Lüssing
2019-05-02 6:40 ` Sven Eckelmann
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190430160121.GC5267@otheros \
--to=linus.luessing@c0d3.blue \
--cc=b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox