[Battlemesh] Network configuration and address plan for Battlemesh v9

[Ferry Huberts]

On 12/08/15 13:29, Bastian Bittorf wrote:
> * Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> [11.08.2015 21:02]:
>> In laying out the original /21 design for ipv4, I left room for more
>> conventional prefix (/24) distribution, and more radios.
>
> i like this idea, i just was just to shy for proposing it.
>
> what also circles in my head:
> for now we dont use any traffic-prioritizing of the signaling/mesh-proto
> traffic, dont we?
>
> in our internal test we see totally different results when
> doing experiment with and without prio - at least for
> OLSR/OLSR2.
>
> IMHO we should tc-prio traffic of the routing daemons.

Yes, it should be the highest prio in the network.
It's a classic pitfall not to do this; you can then easily collapse the 
network but loading it.
And if you want to make it even more robust you should prevent user 
traffic from using that prio (firewall it)

Ferry