[Battlemesh] Proposal for battlemesh v10 "testbed"

[willi uebelherr]

Dear friends,

why you don't speak about Babel?

Babel — a loop-avoiding distance-vector routing protocol
https://www.irif.fr/~jch/software/babel/

Ceck the routing protocols based on "link state" versus 
"distance-vector" routing mechanism.

And the protocol type is only one thing. His implementation, the 
environment, the stability, the resource consuming and the 
maintenanceare conditions to use it. And all this are strong technical 
questions.

But also the hw-base, what you use. The data transmission, what you 
install. You have so many technical question for "battle mesh".

But if you use the term "mesh", it is a net. A net of nodes, where every 
node is connected with her neigbors. Only then you can use the name 
"mesh" or "net". But never i found it in any community networks.

You have many things to do. The first step is always the theoretical 
clarity.

many greetings, willi
Asuncion, Paraguay


On 14/12/2016 20:42, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>> Simon mentioned that he wasn't really personally interested in
>> "battling" protocols so much (as in the first few battlemeshes),
>
> This would be the kiss of death for Battlemesh.
>
> Battlemesh is about experimentally comparing the performance of routing
> protocols.  If Battlemesh doesn't compare routing protocols, it becomes
> yet another community meet-up.  The technical people will no longer come,
> the community people, who come to battlemesh because it's a chance to meet
> the technical crowd, will go to places that are more interesting, and
> Battlemesh will wither away.
>
> (Since recent Battlemeshes have repeatedly shown Batman-"Advanced" to lag
> behind the other protocols, I cannot help but suspect that Simon might be
> biased against performing experimental work.)
>
>> there are already out there mesh firmwares implementing each routing
>> protocol, being maintained every day, and so up to date with kernel,
>> openwrt, and routing protocol versions, etc
>
>> why not use those firmwares?
>
> Because comparing firmwares is not going to be interesting for the
> technical folks -- if one firmware performs better than another, is it the
> routing protocol?  The kernel version?  The AQM?  A configuration bug?
>
> The technical folks will leave, the community people will follow.
>
> Juliiusz