[CUWiN] assigning numbers to a community wireless mesh
stephane at shimaore.net
Mon Dec 6 11:54:35 CST 2004
Before I say anything more, let me say I think you've a great idea.
I'll just highlight two points.
> So there's no harm using
> link-local addresses for the routing protocol packets. There's also
> no harm using link-local nexthops (the OSPFv3 RFC recommends it, IIRC).
The only drawback I see is that it makes troubleshooting a little bit
more difficult because it breaks traceroute(1). But I'd agree that the
simplification in management of IP addresses is probably worth the
> The address
> on the ethernet, however, had better be unique. I think we should use
> the ethernet's address to identify the router.
That's fine too, for the explicit purpose of selecting a routing ID.
Where I have a problem is that with this scheme you don't have any
_management_ address for the routers. The Ethernet address does not
qualify because if the interface goes down (for example because the
switch/hub/PC connected to it is shut down for any reason), then you
have no way to communicate with the device (can't talk to a down
interface), even though you can route to it.
You may want to think about using a loopback interface (or
sub-interface, depending on the capabilities of the OS) and assign it a
unique address (you only need one per device, no subnets, and they
don't have to aggregate nicely since HSLS is supposed to take care of
routing them). That's a pretty common setup. (IOS for example will use
a loopback interface's IP as the OSPF ID if one is configured, for that
More information about the CU-Wireless