From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <4F3CE080.6000409@hundeboll.net> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:54:56 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWFydGluIEh1bmRlYsO4bGw=?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1328727958-16119-1-git-send-email-martin@hundeboll.net> <1328885591-10445-1-git-send-email-martin@hundeboll.net> <20120215192321.GA24703@pandem0nium> In-Reply-To: <20120215192321.GA24703@pandem0nium> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [RFCv2] batman-adv: Add blocking of one hop OGM messages 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: b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org Hi Simon, On 2012-02-15 20:23, Simon Wunderlich wrote: > Hey Martin, > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 03:53:11PM +0100, Martin Hundebøll wrote: >> 13 files changed, 491 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > please excuse my superficial review, but do we really need to bloat batman-adv > by 491 more lines to drop these OGMs? I'm afraid the filter will evolve > more and more, and eventually the research/debugging code in batman-adv > is bigger than the routing code. ;) Actually, I agree with you. The first patch was nice and (too) simple, but quickly grew :) My initial goal with the filtering was not to get it included in batman-adv, but just to make it available to others, who might need it. I use it in my work on the university and will continue to keep it updated on master. > (sorry for ranting ;] ) We like to rant and bash :) > Have you considered using and/or extending the former ebtables patch > from Linus[1]? We removed [2] it after some discussions [3], but maybe > its worth fixing these problems if its just about dropping some neighbors > packets. The patch has some problems, but it was really short and I guess > we wouldn't mind accepting the performance overhead by ebtables for > research/debugging purposes. Plus, we could make this a compile-feature too. With my approach, we only check OGMs, which is relatively cheap, compared to checking every incoming packet, which is why I didn't chose the netfilter path. At this point I am satisfied with the dropping of OGM's, so I don't think I will spend time looking into netfilter. -- Kind regards, Martin Hundebøll Nordborggade 57, 2. 1 8000 Aarhus C +45 61 65 54 61 martin@hundeboll.net