[Battlemesh] Mesh Routing Protocol Comparison

Dave Taht dave.taht at gmail.com
Sat May 2 17:30:31 CEST 2020

On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 8:16 AM Caleb James DeLisle <cjd at cjdns.fr> wrote:
> Hey Mortiz,
> This data is fantastic. Thank you for putting this together. I'm surprised that the cjdns DHT stuff
> didn't come in last at everything. That algorithm is deprecated but left on because it does work
> when no route server is available. I'd really like to migrate to Yggdrasil algorithm for these cases.
> Obviously I'd love to have the kind of scaling properties of something like Babel, but cjdns and
> Yggdrasil have the additional constraint of having been designed to operate in an environment with
> hostile nodes.

In part, it's my hope the hmac code in a babel branch, answers some of
that concern. Would love to see
more people testing that! https://github.com/jech/babeld/pull/52

the biggest barrier for that code is rotating the hmac.

I think the bird version already has working hmac code that was
submitted fairly recently.

the relevant ietf proposal is:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-babel-hmac-10 (There's also a
dtls thing: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-babel-dtls-09)

However, it is still kind of trivial to do ddoses and so on with other
common tricks (arp spoofing, ra spoofing, etc)

> When I read the mobility testing, I'm not completely clear as to whether I'm looking at drop rate of
> pings between nodes who have themselves changed peer relationships, or between stable nodes in a
> globally dynamic network. In the second case I would intuitively expect to see a good showing from
> Yggdrasil since it will just switch to tree routing when it gets confused. However if the
> destination moves then that has to go through the DHT, and we might find this is in fact hobbling
> the protocol.
> If this is in fact the case, then my intuition is that the DHT nodes should gossip link state
> updates to their keyspace neighbors and communicating nodes should be able to subscribe to receive
> link state updates of those with whom they have active sessions.

I really, really, really wish y'all might observe what happens to your
protocols when the network is actually in use,
not just carrying routing traffic.

> Thanks,
> Caleb
> On 01/05/2020 13:11, Moritz Warning wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I wrote a virtual test setup that supports multiple mesh routing protocols and produces nice graphs.
> > The whole setup is based on Linux network namespaces:
> >
> > https://github.com/mwarning/meshnet-lab
> >
> > So far, there are some preliminary results with a focus on convergence, mobility and scalability.
> >
> > https://github.com/mwarning/meshnet-lab/blob/master/results/README.md
> >
> > Keep in mind that these results are not "final" yet, as hardware limitations and pathological behavior play a dominat factor in some of the results.
> > I hope to be able to present the refined results at the next Battlemesh and have a lively discussion!
> >
> > Best,
> > mwarning
> >
> > Btw.: if you happen to have beefy server with good CPU/IO speed - let me know.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Battlemesh mailing list
> > Battlemesh at ml.ninux.org
> > https://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/battlemesh
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Battlemesh mailing list
> Battlemesh at ml.ninux.org
> https://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/battlemesh

Make Music, Not War

Dave Täht
CTO, TekLibre, LLC
Tel: 1-831-435-0729

More information about the Battlemesh mailing list