Re: [riot-devel] FIB redesign

[Thomas C. Schmidt]

Hi Martine,

a FIB always only provides unique forwarding rules. So there are no 
priorities attached to FIB entries. Priorities of routes may occur in 
RIBs associated with routing protocols ... and a significant question is 
of course how to deal with competing routing protocols that feed the 
FIB. (Typically, these routing protocols split horizon according to IP 
address ranges.)


Still, a routing protocol either overrides FIB entries or it doesn't.

Cheers,

Thomas

On 18.11.2014 21:56, Martine Lenders wrote:

Hi,
it's me again, dumping my latest brainstorm into the thread :D.

Don't we need some kind of priorities for the routing protocols, too? Or
how does the FIB decide which next hop to choose if more than routing
protocol made an entry pointing to it?

Cheers,
Martine

2014-11-17 8:05 GMT+01:00 Martin mailto:martin.landsm...@haw-hamburg.de>>:

Hi Martine,

>... Except you mean the routing protocol by this.
yes, the `prot_id` is the actual used (running) protocol, i.e. RPL.
This identifier must be unique for the running RIOT on the node,
i.e. arbitrary but fixed for the lifetime.

The "binding" of FIB table entries to a specific (running) protocol
is necessary only for updates on them.

Probably `kernel_pid_t` for the would be a waste of one byte for
each FIB table entry.
I will keep it `uint8_t` for now, but test a bit with `kernel_pid_t`.


Best regards,
Martin


On 15.11.2014 02:03, Martine Lenders wrote:

Hi Martin,

2014-11-14 15:23 GMT+01:00 Martin mailto:martin.landsm...@haw-hamburg.de>>:

Hi Martine,

I will change the interface and protocol IDs to
`kernel_type_t` as you suggested.
For the FIB handling perspective this seems also to be the
best (and easiest) way to have the IDs unique on one RIOT/node.


For protocol IDs I suggest `netdev_proto_t` [1]. Except you mean
the routing protocol by this. It aims, at least regarding my
design, to be the RIOT-global identifier for all network protocol
RIOT supports.

Cheers,
Martine

[1]

https://github.com/RIOT-OS/RIOT/blob/038beb0f99215207c09fd862ac7712982cedb3ef/drivers/include/netdev/base.h#L57


___
devel mailing list
devel@riot-os.org  
http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel



___
devel mailing list
devel@riot-os.org 
http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel




--

Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences   Berliner Tor 7 °
° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group20099 Hamburg, Germany °
° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet   Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 °
° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidtFax: +49-40-42875-8409 °
___
devel mailing list
devel@riot-os.org
http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [riot-devel] FIB redesign

[Martine Lenders]

Hi,
it's me again, dumping my latest brainstorm into the thread :D.

Don't we need some kind of priorities for the routing protocols, too? Or
how does the FIB decide which next hop to choose if more than routing
protocol made an entry pointing to it?

Cheers,
Martine

2014-11-17 8:05 GMT+01:00 Martin :

>  Hi Martine,
>
> >... Except you mean the routing protocol by this.
> yes, the `prot_id` is the actual used (running) protocol, i.e. RPL.
> This identifier must be unique for the running RIOT on the node, i.e.
> arbitrary but fixed for the lifetime.
>
> The "binding" of FIB table entries to a specific (running) protocol is
> necessary only for updates on them.
>
> Probably `kernel_pid_t` for the would be a waste of one byte for each FIB
> table entry.
> I will keep it `uint8_t` for now, but test a bit with `kernel_pid_t`.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Martin
>
>
> On 15.11.2014 02:03, Martine Lenders wrote:
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> 2014-11-14 15:23 GMT+01:00 Martin :
>
>>  Hi Martine,
>>
>> I will change the interface and protocol IDs to `kernel_type_t` as you
>> suggested.
>> For the FIB handling perspective this seems also to be the best (and
>> easiest) way to have the IDs unique on one RIOT/node.
>>
>
>  For protocol IDs I suggest `netdev_proto_t` [1]. Except you mean the
> routing protocol by this. It aims, at least regarding my design, to be the
> RIOT-global identifier for all network protocol RIOT supports.
>
>  Cheers,
> Martine
>
>  [1]
> https://github.com/RIOT-OS/RIOT/blob/038beb0f99215207c09fd862ac7712982cedb3ef/drivers/include/netdev/base.h#L57
>
>
> ___
> devel mailing 
> listdevel@riot-os.orghttp://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
>
>
> ___
> devel mailing list
> devel@riot-os.org
> http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
>
___
devel mailing list
devel@riot-os.org
http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [riot-devel] Periodical (virtual) meetings

[Oleg Hahm]

Dear RIOTers!

> Here's the poll:
> https://dudle.inf.tu-dresden.de/RIOT-virt-dev-regular/

According to this poll, everyone is fine with having the meeting on Wednesday
morning. So, in case no one objects, I would suggest to schedule it every
first and third Wednesday of the month at 10am CET.

Hence, our next meeting will take place tomorrow morning. PlaceCam link will
be sent around in advance.

Cheers,
Oleg
-- 
printk ("Barf\n");
linux-2.6.6/arch/v850/kernel/module.c


pgpNgbGH9pfIB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list
devel@riot-os.org
http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel