The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR) is developed for
mobile ad hoc networks. It operates as a table driven, proactive
protocol, i.e., exchanges topology information with other nodes of
the network regularly. Each node selects a set of its neighbor nodes
as "multipoint relays" (MPR). In OLSR, only nodes, selected as such
MPRs, are responsible for forwarding control traffic, intended for
diffusion into the entire network. MPRs provide an efficient
mechanism for flooding control traffic by reducing the number of
transmissions required.
Nodes, selected as MPRs, also have a special responsibility when
declaring link state information in the network. Indeed, the only
requirement for OLSR to provide shortest path routes to all
destinations is that MPR nodes declare link-state information for
their MPR selectors. Additional available link-state information may
be utilized, e.g., for redundancy.
Nodes which have been selected as multipoint relays by some neighbor
node(s) announce this information periodically in their control
messages. Thereby a node announces to the network, that it has
reachability to the nodes which have selected it as an MPR. In route
calculation, the MPRs are used to form the route from a given node to
any destination in the network. Furthermore, the protocol uses the
MPRs to facilitate efficient flooding of control messages in the
network.
A node selects MPRs from among its one hop neighbors with
"symmetric", i.e., bi-directional, linkages. Therefore, selecting
the route through MPRs automatically avoids the problems associated
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 4]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
with data packet transfer over uni-directional links (such as the
problem of not getting link-layer acknowledgments for data packets at
each hop, for link-layers employing this technique for unicast
traffic).
OLSR is developed to work independently from other protocols.
Likewise, OLSR makes no assumptions about the underlying link-layer.
OLSR inherits the concept of forwarding and relaying from HIPERLAN (a
MAC layer protocol) which is standardized by ETSI [3]. The protocol
is developed in the IPANEMA project (part of the Euclid program) and
in the PRIMA project (part of the RNRT program).
The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [5].
Additionally, this document uses the following terminology:
node
A MANET router which implements the Optimized Link State
Routing protocol as specified in this document.
OLSR interface
A network device participating in a MANET running OLSR. A node
may have several OLSR interfaces, each interface assigned an
unique IP address.
non OLSR interface
A network device, not participating in a MANET running OLSR. A
node may have several non OLSR interfaces (wireless and/or
wired). Routing information from these interfaces MAY be
injected into the OLSR routing domain.
single OLSR interface node
A node which has a single OLSR interface, participating in an
OLSR routing domain.
multiple OLSR interface node
A node which has multiple OLSR interfaces, participating in an
OLSR routing domain.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 5]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
main address
The main address of a node, which will be used in OLSR control
traffic as the "originator address" of all messages emitted by
this node. It is the address of one of the OLSR interfaces of
the node.
A single OLSR interface node MUST use the address of its only
OLSR interface as the main address.
A multiple OLSR interface node MUST choose one of its OLSR
interface addresses as its "main address" (equivalent of
"router ID" or "node identifier"). It is of no importance
which address is chosen, however a node SHOULD always use the
same address as its main address.
neighbor node
A node X is a neighbor node of node Y if node Y can hear node X
(i.e., a link exists between an OLSR interface on node X and an
OLSR interface on Y).
2-hop neighbor
A node heard by a neighbor.
strict 2-hop neighbor
a 2-hop neighbor which is not the node itself or a neighbor of
the node, and in addition is a neighbor of a neighbor, with
willingness different from WILL_NEVER, of the node.
multipoint relay (MPR)
A node which is selected by its 1-hop neighbor, node X, to
"re-transmit" all the broadcast messages that it receives from
X, provided that the message is not a duplicate, and that the
time to live field of the message is greater than one.
multipoint relay selector (MPR selector, MS)
A node which has selected its 1-hop neighbor, node X, as its
multipoint relay, will be called a multipoint relay selector of
node X.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 6]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
link
A link is a pair of OLSR interfaces (from two different nodes)
susceptible to hear one another (i.e., one may be able to
receive traffic from the other). A node is said to have a link
to another node when one of its interface has a link to one of
the interfaces of the other node.
symmetric link
A verified bi-directional link between two OLSR interfaces.
asymmetric link
A link between two OLSR interfaces, verified in only one
direction.
symmetric 1-hop neighborhood
The symmetric 1-hop neighborhood of any node X is the set of
nodes which have at least one symmetric link to X.
symmetric 2-hop neighborhood
The symmetric 2-hop neighborhood of X is the set of nodes,
excluding X itself, which have a symmetric link to the
symmetric 1-hop neighborhood of X.
symmetric strict 2-hop neighborhood
The symmetric strict 2-hop neighborhood of X is the set of
nodes, excluding X itself and its neighbors, which have a
symmetric link to some symmetric 1-hop neighbor, with
willingness different of WILL_NEVER, of X.
OLSR is a proactive routing protocol for mobile ad-hoc networks
(MANETs) [1], [2]. It is well suited to large and dense mobile
networks, as the optimization achieved using the MPRs works well in
this context. The larger and more dense a network, the more
optimization can be achieved as compared to the classic link state
algorithm. OLSR uses hop-by-hop routing, i.e., each node uses its
local information to route packets.
OLSR is well suited for networks, where the traffic is random and
sporadic between a larger set of nodes rather than being almost
exclusively between a small specific set of nodes. As a proactive
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 7]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
protocol, OLSR is also suitable for scenarios where the communicating
pairs change over time: no additional control traffic is generated in
this situation since routes are maintained for all known destinations
at all times.
OLSR is a proactive routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks. The
protocol inherits the stability of a link state algorithm and has the
advantage of having routes immediately available when needed due to
its proactive nature. OLSR is an optimization over the classical
link state protocol, tailored for mobile ad hoc networks.
OLSR minimizes the overhead from flooding of control traffic by using
only selected nodes, called MPRs, to retransmit control messages.
This technique significantly reduces the number of retransmissions
required to flood a message to all nodes in the network. Secondly,
OLSR requires only partial link state to be flooded in order to
provide shortest path routes. The minimal set of link state
information required is, that all nodes, selected as MPRs, MUST
declare the links to their MPR selectors. Additional topological
information, if present, MAY be utilized e.g., for redundancy
purposes.
OLSR MAY optimize the reactivity to topological changes by reducing
the maximum time interval for periodic control message transmission.
Furthermore, as OLSR continuously maintains routes to all
destinations in the network, the protocol is beneficial for traffic
patterns where a large subset of nodes are communicating with another
large subset of nodes, and where the [source, destination] pairs are
changing over time. The protocol is particularly suited for large
and dense networks, as the optimization done using MPRs works well in
this context. The larger and more dense a network, the more
optimization can be achieved as compared to the classic link state
algorithm.
OLSR is designed to work in a completely distributed manner and does
not depend on any central entity. The protocol does NOT REQUIRE
reliable transmission of control messages: each node sends control
messages periodically, and can therefore sustain a reasonable loss of
some such messages. Such losses occur frequently in radio networks
due to collisions or other transmission problems.
Also, OLSR does not require sequenced delivery of messages. Each
control message contains a sequence number which is incremented for
each message. Thus the recipient of a control message can, if
required, easily identify which information is more recent - even if
messages have been re-ordered while in transmission.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 8]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
Furthermore, OLSR provides support for protocol extensions such as
sleep mode operation, multicast-routing etc. Such extensions may be
introduced as additions to the protocol without breaking backwards
compatibility with earlier versions.
OLSR does not require any changes to the format of IP packets. Thus
any existing IP stack can be used as is: the protocol only interacts
with routing table management.
The idea of multipoint relays is to minimize the overhead of flooding
messages in the network by reducing redundant retransmissions in the
same region. Each node in the network selects a set of nodes in its
symmetric 1-hop neighborhood which may retransmit its messages. This
set of selected neighbor nodes is called the "Multipoint Relay" (MPR)
set of that node. The neighbors of node N which are *NOT* in its MPR
set, receive and process broadcast messages but do not retransmit
broadcast messages received from node N.
Each node selects its MPR set from among its 1-hop symmetric
neighbors. This set is selected such that it covers (in terms of
radio range) all symmetric strict 2-hop nodes. The MPR set of N,
denoted as MPR(N), is then an arbitrary subset of the symmetric 1-hop
neighborhood of N which satisfies the following condition: every node
in the symmetric strict 2-hop neighborhood of N must have a symmetric
link towards MPR(N). The smaller a MPR set, the less control traffic
overhead results from the routing protocol. [2] gives an analysis
and example of MPR selection algorithms.
Each node maintains information about the set of neighbors that have
selected it as MPR. This set is called the "Multipoint Relay
Selector set" (MPR selector set) of a node. A node obtains this
information from periodic HELLO messages received from the neighbors.
A broadcast message, intended to be diffused in the whole network,
coming from any of the MPR selectors of node N is assumed to be
retransmitted by node N, if N has not received it yet. This set can
change over time (i.e., when a node selects another MPR-set) and is
indicated by the selector nodes in their HELLO messages.
This section outlines the overall protocol functioning.
OLSR is modularized into a "core" of functionality, which is always
required for the protocol to operate, and a set of auxiliary
functions.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 9]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
The core specifies, in its own right, a protocol able to provide
routing in a stand-alone MANET.
Each auxiliary function provides additional functionality, which may
be applicable in specific scenarios, e.g., in case a node is
providing connectivity between the MANET and another routing domain.
All auxiliary functions are compatible, to the extent where any
(sub)set of auxiliary functions may be implemented with the core.
Furthermore, the protocol allows heterogeneous nodes, i.e., nodes
which implement different subsets of the auxiliary functions, to
coexist in the network.
The purpose of dividing the functioning of OLSR into a core
functionality and a set of auxiliary functions is to provide a simple
and easy-to-comprehend protocol, and to provide a way of only adding
complexity where specific additional functionality is required.
The core functionality of OLSR specifies the behavior of a node,
equipped with OLSR interfaces participating in the MANET and running
OLSR as routing protocol. This includes a universal specification of
OLSR protocol messages and their transmission through the network, as
well as link sensing, topology diffusion and route calculation.
Specifically, the core is made up from the following components:
Packet Format and Forwarding
A universal specification of the packet format and an optimized
flooding mechanism serves as the transport mechanism for all
OLSR control traffic.
Link Sensing
Link Sensing is accomplished through periodic emission of HELLO
messages over the interfaces through which connectivity is
checked. A separate HELLO message is generated for each
interface and emitted in correspondence with the provisions in
section 7.
Resulting from Link Sensing is a local link set, describing
links between "local interfaces" and "remote interfaces" -
i.e., interfaces on neighbor nodes.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 10]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
If sufficient information is provided by the link-layer, this
may be utilized to populate the local link set instead of HELLO
message exchange.
Neighbor detection
Given a network with only single interface nodes, a node may
deduct the neighbor set directly from the information exchanged
as part of link sensing: the "main address" of a single
interface node is, by definition, the address of the only
interface on that node.
In a network with multiple interface nodes, additional
information is required in order to map interface addresses to
main addresses (and, thereby, to nodes). This additional
information is acquired through multiple interface declaration
(MID) messages, described in section 5.
MPR Selection and MPR Signaling
The objective of MPR selection is for a node to select a subset
of its neighbors such that a broadcast message, retransmitted
by these selected neighbors, will be received by all nodes 2
hops away. The MPR set of a node is computed such that it, for
each interface, satisfies this condition. The information
required to perform this calculation is acquired through the
periodic exchange of HELLO messages, as described in section 6.
MPR selection procedures are detailed in section 8.3.
MPR signaling is provided in correspondence with the provisions
in the section 6.
Topology Control Message Diffusion
Topology Control messages are diffused with the purpose of
providing each node in the network with sufficient link-state
information to allow route calculation. Topology Control
messages are diffused in correspondence with the provisions in
section 9.
Route Calculation
Given the link state information acquired through periodic
message exchange, as well as the interface configuration of the
nodes, the routing table for each node can be computed. This
is detailed in section 10.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 11]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
The key notion for these mechanisms is the MPR relationship.
The following table specifies the component of the core functionality
of OLSR, as well as their relations to this document.
Feature | Section
------------------------------+--------------
Packet format and forwarding | 3
Information repositories | 4
Main addr and multiple if. | 5
Hello messages | 6
Link sensing | 7
Neighbor detection | 8
Topology discovery | 9
Routing table computation | 10
Node configuration | 11
In addition to the core functioning of OLSR, there are situations
where additional functionality is desired. This includes situations
where a node has multiple interfaces, some of which participate in
another routing domain, where the programming interface to the
networking hardware provides additional information in form of link
layer notifications and where it is desired to provide redundant
topological information to the network on expense of protocol
overhead.
The following table specifies auxiliary functions and their relation
to this document.
Feature | Section
------------------------------+--------------
Non-OLSR interfaces | 12
Link-layer notifications | 13
Advanced link sensing | 14
Redundant topology | 15
Redundant MPR flooding | 16
The interpretation of the above table is as follows: if the feature
listed is required, it SHOULD be provided as specified in the
corresponding section.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 12]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
OLSR communicates using a unified packet format for all data related
to the protocol. The purpose of this is to facilitate extensibility
of the protocol without breaking backwards compatibility. This also
provides an easy way of piggybacking different "types" of information
into a single transmission, and thus for a given implementation to
optimize towards utilizing the maximal frame-size, provided by the
network. These packets are embedded in UDP datagrams for
transmission over the network. The present document is presented
with IPv4 addresses. Considerations regarding IPv6 are given in
section 17.
Each packet encapsulates one or more messages. The messages share a
common header format, which enables nodes to correctly accept and (if
applicable) retransmit messages of an unknown type.
Messages can be flooded onto the entire network, or flooding can be
limited to nodes within a diameter (in terms of number of hops) from
the originator of the message. Thus transmitting a message to the
neighborhood of a node is just a special case of flooding. When
flooding any control message, duplicate retransmissions will be
eliminated locally (i.e., each node maintains a duplicate set to
prevent transmitting the same OLSR control message twice) and
minimized in the entire network through the usage of MPRs as
described in later sections.
Furthermore, a node can examine the header of a message to obtain
information on the distance (in terms of number of hops) to the
originator of the message. This feature may be useful in situations
where, e.g., the time information from a received control messages
stored in a node depends on the distance to the originator.
For a node with one interface, the main address of a node, as defined
in "OLSR Terminology", MUST be set to the address of that interface.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 13]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
Packet Length
The length (in bytes) of the packet
Packet Sequence Number
The Packet Sequence Number (PSN) MUST be incremented by one
each time a new OLSR packet is transmitted. "Wrap-around" is
handled as described in section 19. A separate Packet Sequence
Number is maintained for each interface such that packets
transmitted over an interface are sequentially enumerated.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 14]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
The IP address of the interface over which a packet was transmitted
is obtainable from the IP header of the packet.
If the packet contains no messages (i.e., the Packet Length is less
than or equal to the size of the packet header), the packet MUST
silently be discarded.
For IPv4 addresses, this implies that packets, where the Packet
Length < 16 MUST silently be discarded.
Message Type
This field indicates which type of message is to be found in
the "MESSAGE" part. Message types in the range of 0-127 are
reserved for messages in this document and in possible
extensions.
Vtime
This field indicates for how long time after reception a node
MUST consider the information contained in the message as
valid, unless a more recent update to the information is
received. The validity time is represented by its mantissa
(four highest bits of Vtime field) and by its exponent (four
lowest bits of Vtime field). In other words:
validity time = C*(1+a/16)* 2^b [in seconds]
where a is the integer represented by the four highest bits of
Vtime field and b the integer represented by the four lowest
bits of Vtime field. The proposed value of the scaling factor
C is specified in section 18.
Message Size
This gives the size of this message, counted in bytes and
measured from the beginning of the "Message Type" field and
until the beginning of the next "Message Type" field (or - if
there are no following messages - until the end of the packet).
Originator Address
This field contains the main address of the node, which has
originally generated this message. This field SHOULD NOT be
confused with the source address from the IP header, which is
changed each time to the address of the intermediate interface
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 15]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
which is re-transmitting this message. The Originator Address
field MUST *NEVER* be changed in retransmissions.
Time To Live
This field contains the maximum number of hops a message will
be transmitted. Before a message is retransmitted, the Time To
Live MUST be decremented by 1. When a node receives a message
with a Time To Live equal to 0 or 1, the message MUST NOT be
retransmitted under any circumstances. Normally, a node would
not receive a message with a TTL of zero.
Thus, by setting this field, the originator of a message can
limit the flooding radius.
Hop Count
This field contains the number of hops a message has attained.
Before a message is retransmitted, the Hop Count MUST be
incremented by 1.
Initially, this is set to '0' by the originator of the message.
Message Sequence Number
While generating a message, the "originator" node will assign a
unique identification number to each message. This number is
inserted into the Sequence Number field of the message. The
sequence number is increased by 1 (one) for each message
originating from the node. "Wrap-around" is handled as
described in section 19. Message sequence numbers are used to
ensure that a given message is not retransmitted more than once
by any node.
Upon receiving a basic packet, a node examines each of the "message
headers". Based on the value of the "Message Type" field, the node
can determine the fate of the message. A node may receive the same
message several times. Thus, to avoid re-processing of some messages
which were already received and processed, each node maintains a
Duplicate Set. In this set, the node records information about the
most recently received messages where duplicate processing of a
message is to be avoided. For such a message, a node records a
"Duplicate Tuple" (D_addr, D_seq_num, D_retransmitted, D_iface_list,
D_time), where D_addr is the originator address of the message,
D_seq_num is the message sequence number of the message,
D_retransmitted is a boolean indicating whether the message has been
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 16]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
already retransmitted, D_iface_list is a list of the addresses of the
interfaces on which the message has been received and D_time
specifies the time at which a tuple expires and *MUST* be removed.
In a node, the set of Duplicate Tuples are denoted the "Duplicate
set".
In this section, the term "Originator Address" will be used for the
main address of the node which sent the message. The term "Sender
Interface Address" will be used for the sender address (given in the
IP header of the packet containing the message) of the interface
which sent the message. The term "Receiving Interface Address" will
be used for the address of the interface of the node which received
the message.
Thus, upon receiving a basic packet, a node MUST perform the
following tasks for each encapsulated message:
1 If the packet contains no messages (i.e., the Packet Length is
less than or equal to the size of the packet header), the
packet MUST silently be discarded.
For IPv4 addresses, this implies that packets, where the
Packet Length < 16 MUST silently be discarded.
2 If the time to live of the message is less than or equal to
'0' (zero), or if the message was sent by the receiving node
(i.e., the Originator Address of the message is the main
address of the receiving node): the message MUST silently be
dropped.
3 Processing condition:
3.1 if there exists a tuple in the duplicate set, where:
D_addr == Originator Address, AND
D_seq_num == Message Sequence Number
then the message has already been completely processed
and MUST not be processed again.
3.2 Otherwise, if the node implements the Message Type of the
message, the message MUST be processed according to the
specifications for the message type.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 17]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
4 Forwarding condition:
4.1 if there exists a tuple in the duplicate set, where:
D_addr == Originator Address, AND
D_seq_num == Message Sequence Number,
AND
the receiving interface (address) is
in D_iface_list
then the message has already been considered for
forwarding and SHOULD NOT be retransmitted again.
4.2 Otherwise:
4.2.1
If the node implements the Message Type of the
message, the message MUST be considered for
forwarding according to the specifications for
the message type.
4.2.2
Otherwise, if the node does not implement the
Message Type of the message, the message SHOULD
be processed according to the default
forwarding algorithm described below.
The default forwarding algorithm is the following:
1 If the sender interface address of the message is not detected
to be in the symmetric 1-hop neighborhood of the node, the
forwarding algorithm MUST silently stop here (and the message
MUST NOT be forwarded).
2 If there exists a tuple in the duplicate set where:
D_addr == Originator Address
D_seq_num == Message Sequence Number
Then the message will be further considered for forwarding if
and only if:
D_retransmitted is false, AND
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 18]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
the (address of the) interface which received the message
is not included among the addresses in D_iface_list
3 Otherwise, if such an entry doesn't exist, the message is
further considered for forwarding.
If after those steps, the message is not considered for forwarding,
then the processing of this section stops (i.e., steps 4 to 8 are
ignored), otherwise, if it is still considered for forwarding then
the following algorithm is used:
4 If the sender interface address is an interface address of a
MPR selector of this node and if the time to live of the
message is greater than '1', the message MUST be retransmitted
(as described later in steps 6 to 8).
5 If an entry in the duplicate set exists, with same Originator
Address, and same Message Sequence Number, the entry is
updated as follows:
D_time = current time + DUP_HOLD_TIME.
The receiving interface (address) is added to
D_iface_list.
D_retransmitted is set to true if and only if the message
will be retransmitted according to step 4.
Otherwise an entry in the duplicate set is recorded with:
D_addr = Originator Address
D_seq_num = Message Sequence Number
D_time = current time + DUP_HOLD_TIME.
D_iface_list contains the receiving interface address.
D_retransmitted is set to true if and only if the message
will be retransmitted according to step 4.
If, and only if, according to step 4, the message must be
retransmitted then:
6 The TTL of the message is reduced by one.
7 The hop-count of the message is increased by one
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 19]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
8 The message is broadcast on all interfaces (Notice: The
remaining fields of the message header SHOULD be left
unmodified.)
It should be noted that processing and forwarding messages are two
different actions, conditioned by different rules. Processing
relates to using the content of the messages, while forwarding is
related to retransmitting the same message for other nodes of the
network.
Notice that this specification includes a description for both the
forwarding and the processing of each known message type. Messages
with known message types MUST *NOT* be forwarded "blindly" by this
algorithm. Forwarding (and setting the correct message header in the
forwarded, known, message) is the responsibility of the algorithm
specifying how the message is to be handled and, if necessary,
retransmitted. This enables a message type to be specified such that
the message can be modified while in transit (e.g., to reflect the
route the message has taken). It also enables bypassing of the MPR
flooding mechanism if for some reason classical flooding of a message
type is required, the algorithm which specifies how such messages
should be handled will simply rebroadcast the message, regardless of
MPRs.
By defining a set of message types, which MUST be recognized by all
implementations of OLSR, it will be possible to extend the protocol
through introduction of additional message types, while still being
able to maintain compatibility with older implementations. The
REQUIRED message types for the core functionality of OLSR are:
- HELLO-messages, performing the task of link sensing, neighbor
detection and MPR signaling,
- TC-messages, performing the task of topology declaration
(advertisement of link states).
- MID-messages, performing the task of declaring the presence of
multiple interfaces on a node.
Other message types include those specified in later sections, as
well as possible future extensions such as messages enabling power
conservation / sleep mode, multicast routing, support for
unidirectional links, auto-configuration/address assignment etc.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 20]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
As a basic implementation requirement, synchronization of control
messages SHOULD be avoided. As a consequence, OLSR control messages
SHOULD be emitted such that they avoid synchronization.
Emission of control traffic from neighboring nodes may, for various
reasons (mainly timer interactions with packet processing), become
synchronized such that several neighbor nodes attempt to transmit
control traffic simultaneously. Depending on the nature of the
underlying link-layer, this may or may not lead to collisions and
hence message loss - possibly loss of several subsequent messages of
the same type.
To avoid such synchronizations, the following simple strategy for
emitting control messages is proposed. A node SHOULD add an amount
of jitter to the interval at which messages are generated. The
jitter must be a random value for each message generated. Thus, for
a node utilizing jitter:
Actual message interval = MESSAGE_INTERVAL - jitter
Where jitter is a value, randomly selected from the interval
[0,MAXJITTER] and MESSAGE_INTERVAL is the value of the message
interval specified for the message being emitted (e.g.,
HELLO_INTERVAL for HELLO messages, TC_INTERVAL for TC-messages etc.).
Jitter SHOULD also be introduced when forwarding messages. The
following simple strategy may be adopted: when a message is to be
forwarded by a node, it should be kept in the node during a short
period of time :
Keep message period = jitter
Where jitter is a random value in [0,MAXJITTER].
Notice that when the node sends a control message, the opportunity to
piggyback other messages (before their keeping period is expired) may
be taken to reduce the number of packet transmissions.
Notice, that a minimal rate of control messages is imposed. A node
MAY send control messages at a higher rate, if beneficial for a
specific deployment.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 21]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
Through the exchange of OLSR control messages, each node accumulates
information about the network. This information is stored according
to the descriptions in this section.
For each destination in the network, "Interface Association Tuples"
(I_iface_addr, I_main_addr, I_time) are recorded. I_iface_addr is an
interface address of a node, I_main_addr is the main address of this
node. I_time specifies the time at which this tuple expires and
*MUST* be removed.
In a node, the set of Interface Association Tuples is denoted the
"Interface Association Set".
A node records a set of "Link Tuples" (L_local_iface_addr,
L_neighbor_iface_addr, L_SYM_time, L_ASYM_time, L_time).
L_local_iface_addr is the interface address of the local node (i.e.,
one endpoint of the link), L_neighbor_iface_addr is the interface
address of the neighbor node (i.e., the other endpoint of the link),
L_SYM_time is the time until which the link is considered symmetric,
L_ASYM_time is the time until which the neighbor interface is
considered heard, and L_time specifies the time at which this record
expires and *MUST* be removed. When L_SYM_time and L_ASYM_time are
expired, the link is considered lost.
This information is used when declaring the neighbor interfaces in
the HELLO messages.
L_SYM_time is used to decide the Link Type declared for the neighbor
interface. If L_SYM_time is not expired, the link MUST be declared
symmetric. If L_SYM_time is expired, the link MUST be declared
asymmetric. If both L_SYM_time and L_ASYM_time are expired, the link
MUST be declared lost.
In a node, the set of Link Tuples are denoted the "Link Set".
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 22]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
A node records a set of "neighbor tuples" (N_neighbor_main_addr,
N_status, N_willingness), describing neighbors. N_neighbor_main_addr
is the main address of a neighbor, N_status specifies if the node is
NOT_SYM or SYM. N_willingness in an integer between 0 and 7, and
specifies the node's willingness to carry traffic on behalf of other
nodes.
A node records a set of "2-hop tuples" (N_neighbor_main_addr,
N_2hop_addr, N_time), describing symmetric (and, since MPR links by
definition are also symmetric, thereby also MPR) links between its
neighbors and the symmetric 2-hop neighborhood. N_neighbor_main_addr
is the main address of a neighbor, N_2hop_addr is the main address of
a 2-hop neighbor with a symmetric link to N_neighbor_main_addr, and
N_time specifies the time at which the tuple expires and *MUST* be
removed.
In a node, the set of 2-hop tuples are denoted the "2-hop Neighbor
Set".
A node records a set of MPR-selector tuples (MS_main_addr, MS_time),
describing the neighbors which have selected this node as a MPR.
MS_main_addr is the main address of a node, which has selected this
node as MPR. MS_time specifies the time at which the tuple expires
and *MUST* be removed.
In a node, the set of MPR-selector tuples are denoted the "MPR
Selector Set".
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 23]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
Each node in the network maintains topology information about the
network. This information is acquired from TC-messages and is used
for routing table calculations.
Thus, for each destination in the network, at least one "Topology
Tuple" (T_dest_addr, T_last_addr, T_seq, T_time) is recorded.
T_dest_addr is the main address of a node, which may be reached in
one hop from the node with the main address T_last_addr. Typically,
T_last_addr is a MPR of T_dest_addr. T_seq is a sequence number, and
T_time specifies the time at which this tuple expires and *MUST* be
removed.
In a node, the set of Topology Tuples are denoted the "Topology Set".
For single OLSR interface nodes, the relationship between an OLSR
interface address and the corresponding main address is trivial: the
main address is the OLSR interface address. For multiple OLSR
interface nodes, the relationship between OLSR interface addresses
and main addresses is defined through the exchange of Multiple
Interface Declaration (MID) messages. This section describes how MID
messages are exchanged and processed.
Each node with multiple interfaces MUST announce, periodically,
information describing its interface configuration to other nodes in
the network. This is accomplished through flooding a Multiple
Interface Declaration message to all nodes in the network through the
MPR flooding mechanism.
Each node in the network maintains interface information about the
other nodes in the network. This information acquired from MID
messages, emitted by nodes with multiple interfaces participating in
the MANET, and is used for routing table calculations.
Specifically, multiple interface declaration associates multiple
interfaces to a node (and to a main address) through populating the
multiple interface association base in each node.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 24]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
The proposed format of a MID message is as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OLSR Interface Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OLSR Interface Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This is sent as the data-portion of the general packet format
described in section 3.4, with the "Message Type" set to MID_MESSAGE.
The time to live SHOULD be set to 255 (maximum value) to diffuse the
message into the entire network and Vtime set accordingly to the
value of MID_HOLD_TIME, as specified in section 18.3.
OLSR Interface Address
This field contains the address of an OLSR interface of the
node, excluding the nodes main address (which already
indicated in the originator address).
All interface addresses other than the main address of the originator
node are put in the MID message. If the maximum allowed message size
(as imposed by the network) is reached while there are still
interface addresses which have not been inserted into the MIDmessage,
more MID messages are generated until the entire interface addresses
set has been sent.
A MID message is sent by a node in the network to declare its
multiple interfaces (if any). I.e., the MID message contains the
list of interface addresses which are associated to its main address.
The list of addresses can be partial in each MID message (e.g., due
to message size limitations, imposed by the network), but parsing of
all MID messages describing the interface set from a node MUST be
complete within a certain refreshing period (MID_INTERVAL). The
information diffused in the network by these MID messages will help
each node to calculate its routing table. A node which has only a
single interface address participating in the MANET (i.e., running
OLSR), MUST NOT generate any MID message.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 25]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
A node with several interfaces, where only one is participating in
the MANET and running OLSR (e.g., a node is connected to a wired
network as well as to a MANET) MUST NOT generate any MID messages.
A node with several interfaces, where more than one is participating
in the MANET and running OLSR MUST generate MID messages as
specified.
MID messages are broadcast and retransmitted by the MPRs in order to
diffuse the messages in the entire network. The "default forwarding
algorithm" (described in section 3.4) MUST be used for forwarding of
MID messages.
The tuples in the multiple interface association set are recorded
with the information that is exchanged through MID messages.
Upon receiving a MID message, the "validity time" MUST be computed
from the Vtime field of the message header (as described in section
3.3.2). The Multiple Interface Association Information Base SHOULD
then be updated as follows:
1 If the sender interface (NB: not originator) of this message
is not in the symmetric 1-hop neighborhood of this node, the
message MUST be discarded.
2 For each interface address listed in the MID message:
2.1 If there exist some tuple in the interface association
set where:
I_iface_addr == interface address, AND
I_main_addr == originator address,
then the holding time of that tuple is set to:
I_time = current time + validity time.
2.2 Otherwise, a new tuple is recorded in the interface
association set where:
I_iface_addr = interface address,
I_main_addr = originator address,
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 26]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
I_time = current time + validity time.
In general, the only part of OLSR requiring use of "interface
addresses" is link sensing. The remaining parts of OLSR operate on
nodes, uniquely identified by their "main addresses" (effectively,
the main address of a node is its "node id" - which for convenience
corresponds to the address of one of its interfaces). In a network
with only single interface nodes, the main address of a node will, by
definition, be equal to the interface address of the node. In
networks with multiple interface nodes operating within a common OLSR
area, it is required to be able to map any interface address to the
corresponding main address.
The exchange of MID messages provides a way in which interface
information is acquired by nodes in the network. This permits
identification of a node's "main address", given one of its interface
addresses.
Given an interface address:
1 if there exists some tuple in the interface association set
where:
I_iface_addr == interface address
then the result of the main address search is the originator
address I_main_addr of the tuple.
2 Otherwise, the result of the main address search is the
interface address itself.
A common mechanism is employed for populating the local link
information base and the neighborhood information base, namely
periodic exchange of HELLO messages. Thus this section describes the
general HELLO message mechanism, followed by a description of link
sensing and topology detection, respectively.
To accommodate for link sensing, neighborhood detection and MPR
selection signalling, as well as to accommodate for future
extensions, an approach similar to the overall packet format is
taken. Thus the proposed format of a HELLO message is as follows:
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 27]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Htime | Willingness |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Code | Reserved | Link Message Size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Neighbor Interface Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Neighbor Interface Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: . . . :
: :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Code | Reserved | Link Message Size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Neighbor Interface Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Neighbor Interface Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: :
: :
(etc.)
This is sent as the data-portion of the general packet format
described in section 3.4, with the "Message Type" set to
HELLO_MESSAGE, the TTL field set to 1 (one) and Vtime set accordingly
to the value of NEIGHB_HOLD_TIME, specified in section 18.3.
Reserved
This field must be set to "0000000000000" to be in compliance
with this specification.
HTime
This field specifies the HELLO emission interval used by the
node on this particular interface, i.e., the time before the
transmission of the next HELLO (this information may be used in
advanced link sensing, see section 14). The HELLO emission
interval is represented by its mantissa (four highest bits of
Htime field) and by its exponent (four lowest bits of Htime
field). In other words:
HELLO emission interval=C*(1+a/16)*2^b [in seconds]
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 28]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
where a is the integer represented by the four highest bits of
Htime field and b the integer represented by the four lowest
bits of Htime field. The proposed value of the scaling factor
C is specified in section 18.
Willingness
This field specifies the willingness of a node to carry and
forward traffic for other nodes.
A node with willingness WILL_NEVER (see section 18.8, for
willingness constants) MUST never be selected as MPR by any
node. A node with willingness WILL_ALWAYS MUST always be
selected as MPR. By default, a node SHOULD advertise a
willingness of WILL_DEFAULT.
Link Code
This field specifies information about the link between the
interface of the sender and the following list of neighbor
interfaces. It also specifies information about the status of
the neighbor.
Link codes, not known by a node, are silently discarded.
Link Message Size
The size of the link message, counted in bytes and measured
from the beginning of the "Link Code" field and until the next
"Link Code" field (or - if there are no more link types - the
end of the message).
Neighbor Interface Address
The address of an interface of a neighbor node.
This document only specifies processing of Link Codes < 16.
If the Link Code value is less than or equal to 15, then it MUST be
interpreted as holding two different fields, of two bits each:
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Neighbor Type | Link Type |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 29]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
The following four "Link Types" are REQUIRED by OLSR:
- UNSPEC_LINK - indicating that no specific information about
the links is given.
- ASYM_LINK - indicating that the links are asymmetric (i.e.,
the neighbor interface is "heard").
- SYM_LINK - indicating that the links are symmetric with the
interface.
- LOST_LINK - indicating that the links have been lost.
The following three "Neighbor Types" are REQUIRED by OLSR:
- SYM_NEIGH - indicating that the neighbors have at least one
symmetrical link with this node.
- MPR_NEIGH - indicating that the neighbors have at least one
symmetrical link AND have been selected as MPR by the sender.
- NOT_NEIGH - indicating that the nodes are either no longer or
have not yet become symmetric neighbors.
Note that an implementation should be careful in confusing neither
Link Type with Neighbor Type nor the constants (confusing SYM_NEIGH
with SYM_LINK for instance).
A link code advertising:
Link Type == SYM_LINK AND
Neighbor Type == NOT_NEIGH
is invalid, and any links advertised as such MUST be silently
discarded without any processing.
Likewise a Neighbor Type field advertising a numerical value which is
not one of the constants SYM_NEIGH, MPR_NEIGH, NOT_NEIGH, is invalid,
and any links advertised as such MUST be silently discarded without
any processing.
This involves transmitting the Link Set, the Neighbor Set and the MPR
Set. In principle, a HELLO message serves three independent tasks:
- link sensing
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 30]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
- neighbor detection
- MPR selection signaling
Three tasks are all are based on periodic information exchange within
a nodes neighborhood, and serve the common purpose of "local topology
discovery". A HELLO message is therefore generated based on the
information stored in the Local Link Set, the Neighbor Set and the
MPR Set from the local link information base.
A node must perform link sensing on each interface, in order to
detect links between the interface and neighbor interfaces.
Furthermore, a node must advertise its entire symmetric 1-hop
neighborhood on each interface in order to perform neighbor
detection. Hence, for a given interface, a HELLO message will
contain a list of links on that interface (with associated link
types), as well as a list of the entire neighborhood (with an
associated neighbor types).
The Vtime field is set such that it corresponds to the value of the
node's NEIGHB_HOLD_TIME parameter. The Htime field is set such that
it corresponds to the value of the node's HELLO_INTERVAL parameter
(see section 18.3).
The Willingness field is set such that it corresponds to the node's
willingness to forward traffic on behalf of other nodes (see section
18.8). A node MUST advertise the same willingness on all interfaces.
The lists of addresses declared in a HELLO message is a list of
neighbor interface addresses computed as follows:
For each tuple in the Link Set, where L_local_iface_addr is the
interface where the HELLO is to be transmitted, and where L_time >=
current time (i.e., not expired), L_neighbor_iface_addr is advertised
with:
1 The Link Type set according to the following:
1.1 if L_SYM_time >= current time (not expired)
Link Type = SYM_LINK
1.2 Otherwise, if L_ASYM_time >= current time (not expired)
AND
L_SYM_time < current time (expired)
Link Type = ASYM_LINK
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 31]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
1.3 Otherwise, if L_ASYM_time < current time (expired) AND
L_SYM_time < current time (expired)
Link Type = LOST_LINK
2 The Neighbor Type is set according to the following:
2.1 If the main address, corresponding to
L_neighbor_iface_addr, is included in the MPR set:
Neighbor Type = MPR_NEIGH
2.2 Otherwise, if the main address, corresponding to
L_neighbor_iface_addr, is included in the neighbor set:
2.2.1
if N_status == SYM
Neighbor Type = SYM_NEIGH
2.2.2
Otherwise, if N_status == NOT_SYM
Neighbor Type = NOT_NEIGH
For each tuple in the Neighbor Set, for which no
L_neighbor_iface_addr from an associated link tuple has been
advertised by the previous algorithm, N_neighbor_main_addr is
advertised with:
- Link Type = UNSPEC_LINK,
- Neighbor Type set as described in step 2 above
For a node with a single OLSR interface, the main address is simply
the address of the OLSR interface, i.e., for a node with a single
OLSR interface the main address, corresponding to
L_neighbor_iface_addr is simply L_neighbor_iface_addr.
A HELLO message can be partial (e.g., due to message size
limitations, imposed by the network), the rule being the following,
on each interface: each link and each neighbor node MUST be cited at
least once within a predetermined refreshing period,
REFRESH_INTERVAL. To keep track of fast connectivity changes, a
HELLO message must be sent at least every HELLO_INTERVAL period,
smaller than or equal to REFRESH_INTERVAL.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 32]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
Notice that for limiting the impact from loss of control messages, it
is desirable that a message (plus the generic packet header) can fit
into a single MAC frame.
Each HELLO message generated is broadcast by the node on one
interface to its neighbors (i.e. the interface for which the HELLO
was generated). HELLO messages MUST never be forwarded.
A node processes incoming HELLO messages for the purpose of
conducting link sensing (detailed in section 7), neighbor detection
and MPR selector set population (detailed in section 8)
Link sensing populates the local link information base. Link sensing
is exclusively concerned with OLSR interface addresses and the
ability to exchange packets between such OLSR interfaces.
The mechanism for link sensing is the periodic exchange of HELLO
messages.
The Link Set is populated with information on links to neighbor
nodes. The process of populating this set is denoted "link sensing"
and is performed using HELLO message exchange, updating a local link
information base in each node.
Each node should detect the links between itself and neighbor nodes.
Uncertainties over radio propagation may make some links
unidirectional. Consequently, all links MUST be checked in both
directions in order to be considered valid.
A "link" is described by a pair of interfaces: a local and a remote
interface.
For the purpose of link sensing, each neighbor node (more
specifically, the link to each neighbor) has an associated status of
either "symmetric" or "asymmetric". "Symmetric" indicates, that the
link to that neighbor node has been verified to be bi-directional,
i.e., it is possible to transmit data in both directions.
"Asymmetric" indicates that HELLO messages from the node have been
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 33]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
heard (i.e., communication from the neighbor node is possible),
however it is not confirmed that this node is also able to receive
messages (i.e., communication to the neighbor node is not confirmed).
The information, acquired through and used by the link sensing, is
accumulated in the link set.
The "Originator Address" of a HELLO message is the main address of
the node, which has emitted the message.
Upon receiving a HELLO message, a node SHOULD update its Link Set.
Notice, that a HELLO message MUST neither be forwarded nor be
recorded in the duplicate set.
Upon receiving a HELLO message, the "validity time" MUST be computed
from the Vtime field of the message header (see section 3.3.2).
Then, the Link Set SHOULD be updated as follows:
1 Upon receiving a HELLO message, if there exists no link tuple
with
L_neighbor_iface_addr == Source Address
a new tuple is created with
L_neighbor_iface_addr = Source Address
L_local_iface_addr = Address of the interface
which received the
HELLO message
L_SYM_time = current time - 1 (expired)
L_time = current time + validity time
2 The tuple (existing or new) with:
L_neighbor_iface_addr == Source Address
is then modified as follows:
2.1 L_ASYM_time = current time + validity time;
2.2 if the node finds the address of the interface which
received the HELLO message among the addresses listed in
the link message then the tuple is modified as follows:
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 34]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
2.2.1
if Link Type is equal to LOST_LINK then
L_SYM_time = current time - 1 (i.e., expired)
2.2.2
else if Link Type is equal to SYM_LINK or ASYM_LINK
then
L_SYM_time = current time + validity time,
L_time = L_SYM_time + NEIGHB_HOLD_TIME
2.3 L_time = max(L_time, L_ASYM_time)
The above rule for setting L_time is the following: a link losing its
symmetry SHOULD still be advertised during at least the duration of
the "validity time" advertised in the generated HELLO. This allows
neighbors to detect the link breakage.
Neighbor detection populates the neighborhood information base and
concerns itself with nodes and node main addresses. The relationship
between OLSR interface addresses and main addresses is described in
section 5.
The mechanism for neighbor detection is the periodic exchange of
HELLO messages.
A node maintains a set of neighbor tuples, based on the link tuples.
This information is updated according to changes in the Link Set.
The Link Set keeps the information about the links, while the
Neighbor Set keeps the information about the neighbors. There is a
clear association between those two sets, since a node is a neighbor
of another node if and only if there is at least one link between the
two nodes.
In any case, the formal correspondence between links and neighbors is
defined as follows:
The "associated neighbor tuple" of a link tuple, is, if it
exists, the neighbor tuple where:
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 35]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
N_neighbor_main_addr == main address of
L_neighbor_iface_addr
The "associated link tuples" of a neighbor tuple, are all the
link tuples, where:
N_neighbor_main_addr == main address of
L_neighbor_iface_addr
The Neighbor Set MUST be populated by maintaining the proper
correspondence between link tuples and associated neighbor tuples, as
follows:
Creation
Each time a link appears, that is, each time a link tuple is
created, the associated neighbor tuple MUST be created, if it
doesn't already exist, with the following values:
N_neighbor_main_addr = main address of
L_neighbor_iface_addr
(from the link tuple)
In any case, the N_status MUST then be computed as described
in the next step
Update
Each time a link changes, that is, each time the information
of a link tuple is modified, the node MUST ensure that the
N_status of the associated neighbor tuple respects the
property:
If the neighbor has any associated link tuple which
indicates a symmetric link (i.e., with L_SYM_time >=
current time), then
N_status is set to SYM
else N_status is set to NOT_SYM
Removal
Each time a link is deleted, that is, each time a link tuple
is removed, the associated neighbor tuple MUST be removed if
it has no longer any associated link tuples.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 36]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
These rules ensure that there is exactly one associated neighbor
tuple for a link tuple, and that every neighbor tuple has at least
one associated link tuple.
The "Originator Address" of a HELLO message is the main address of
the node, which has emitted the message. Likewise, the "willingness"
MUST be computed from the Willingness field of the HELLO message (see
section 6.1).
Upon receiving a HELLO message, a node SHOULD first update its Link
Set as described before. It SHOULD then update its Neighbor Set as
follows:
- if the Originator Address is the N_neighbor_main_addr from a
neighbor tuple included in the Neighbor Set:
then, the neighbor tuple SHOULD be updated as follows:
N_willingness = willingness from the HELLO message
The 2-hop neighbor set describes the set of nodes which have a
symmetric link to a symmetric neighbor. This information set is
maintained through periodic exchange of HELLO messages as described
in this section.
The "Originator Address" of a HELLO message is the main address of
the node, which has emitted the message.
Upon receiving a HELLO message from a symmetric neighbor, a node
SHOULD update its 2-hop Neighbor Set. Notice, that a HELLO message
MUST neither be forwarded nor be recorded in the duplicate set.
Upon receiving a HELLO message, the "validity time" MUST be computed
from the Vtime field of the message header (see section 3.3.2).
If the Originator Address is the main address of a
L_neighbor_iface_addr from a link tuple included in the Link Set with
L_SYM_time >= current time (not expired)
(in other words: if the Originator Address is a symmetric neighbor)
then the 2-hop Neighbor Set SHOULD be updated as follows:
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 37]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
1 for each address (henceforth: 2-hop neighbor address), listed
in the HELLO message with Neighbor Type equal to SYM_NEIGH or
MPR_NEIGH:
1.1 if the main address of the 2-hop neighbor address = main
address of the receiving node:
silently discard the 2-hop neighbor address.
(in other words: a node is not its own 2-hop neighbor).
1.2 Otherwise, a 2-hop tuple is created with:
N_neighbor_main_addr = Originator Address;
N_2hop_addr = main address of the
2-hop neighbor;
N_time = current time
+ validity time.
This tuple may replace an older similar tuple with same
N_neighbor_main_addr and N_2hop_addr values.
2 For each 2-hop node listed in the HELLO message with Neighbor
Type equal to NOT_NEIGH, all 2-hop tuples where:
N_neighbor_main_addr == Originator Address AND
N_2hop_addr == main address of the
2-hop neighbor
are deleted.
MPRs are used to flood control messages from a node into the network
while reducing the number of retransmissions that will occur in a
region. Thus, the concept of MPR is an optimization of a classical
flooding mechanism.
Each node in the network selects, independently, its own set of MPRs
among its symmetric 1-hop neighborhood. The symmetric links with
MPRs are advertised with Link Type MPR_NEIGH instead of SYM_NEIGH in
HELLO messages.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 38]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
The MPR set MUST be calculated by a node in such a way that it,
through the neighbors in the MPR-set, can reach all symmetric strict
2-hop neighbors. (Notice that a node, a, which is a direct neighbor
of another node, b, is not also a strict 2-hop neighbor of node b).
This means that the union of the symmetric 1-hop neighborhoods of the
MPR nodes contains the symmetric strict 2-hop neighborhood. MPR set
recalculation should occur when changes are detected in the symmetric
neighborhood or in the symmetric strict 2-hop neighborhood.
MPRs are computed per interface, the union of the MPR sets of each
interface make up the MPR set for the node.
While it is not essential that the MPR set is minimal, it is
essential that all strict 2-hop neighbors can be reached through the
selected MPR nodes. A node SHOULD select an MPR set such that any
strict 2-hop neighbor is covered by at least one MPR node. Keeping
the MPR set small ensures that the overhead of the protocol is kept
at a minimum.
The MPR set can coincide with the entire symmetric neighbor set.
This could be the case at network initialization (and will correspond
to classic link-state routing).
The following specifies a proposed heuristic for selection of MPRs.
It constructs an MPR-set that enables a node to reach any node in the
symmetrical strict 2-hop neighborhood through relaying by one MPR
node with willingness different from WILL_NEVER. The heuristic MUST
be applied per interface, I. The MPR set for a node is the union of
the MPR sets found for each interface. The following terminology
will be used in describing the heuristics:
neighbor of an interface
a node is a "neighbor of an interface" if the interface
(on the local node) has a link to any one interface of
the neighbor node.
2-hop neighbors reachable from an interface
the list of 2-hop neighbors of the node that can be
reached from neighbors of this interface.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 39]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
MPR set of an interface
a (sub)set of the neighbors of an interface with a
willingness different from WILL_NEVER, selected such that
through these selected nodes, all strict 2-hop neighbors
reachable from that interface are reachable.
N:
N is the subset of neighbors of the node, which are
neighbor of the interface I.
N2:
The set of 2-hop neighbors reachable from the interface
I, excluding:
(i) the nodes only reachable by members of N with
willingness WILL_NEVER
(ii) the node performing the computation
(iii) all the symmetric neighbors: the nodes for which
there exists a symmetric link to this node on some
interface.
D(y):
The degree of a 1-hop neighbor node y (where y is a
member of N), is defined as the number of symmetric
neighbors of node y, EXCLUDING all the members of N and
EXCLUDING the node performing the computation.
The proposed heuristic is as follows:
1 Start with an MPR set made of all members of N with
N_willingness equal to WILL_ALWAYS
2 Calculate D(y), where y is a member of N, for all nodes in N.
3 Add to the MPR set those nodes in N, which are the *only*
nodes to provide reachability to a node in N2. For example,
if node b in N2 can be reached only through a symmetric link
to node a in N, then add node a to the MPR set. Remove the
nodes from N2 which are now covered by a node in the MPR set.
4 While there exist nodes in N2 which are not covered by at
least one node in the MPR set:
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 40]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
4.1 For each node in N, calculate the reachability, i.e., the
number of nodes in N2 which are not yet covered by at
least one node in the MPR set, and which are reachable
through this 1-hop neighbor;
4.2 Select as a MPR the node with highest N_willingness among
the nodes in N with non-zero reachability. In case of
multiple choice select the node which provides
reachability to the maximum number of nodes in N2. In
case of multiple nodes providing the same amount of
reachability, select the node as MPR whose D(y) is
greater. Remove the nodes from N2 which are now covered
by a node in the MPR set.
5 A node's MPR set is generated from the union of the MPR sets
for each interface. As an optimization, process each node, y,
in the MPR set in increasing order of N_willingness. If all
nodes in N2 are still covered by at least one node in the MPR
set excluding node y, and if N_willingness of node y is
smaller than WILL_ALWAYS, then node y MAY be removed from the
MPR set.
Other algorithms, as well as improvements over this algorithm, are
possible. For example, assume that in a multiple-interface scenario
there exists more than one link between nodes 'a' and 'b'. If node
'a' has selected node 'b' as MPR for one of its interfaces, then node
'b' can be selected as MPR without additional performance loss by any
other interfaces on node 'a'.
The MPR selector set of a node, n, is populated by the main addresses
of the nodes which have selected n as MPR. MPR selection is signaled
through HELLO messages.
Upon receiving a HELLO message, if a node finds one of its own
interface addresses in the list with a Neighbor Type equal to
MPR_NEIGH, information from the HELLO message must be recorded in the
MPR Selector Set.
The "validity time" MUST be computed from the Vtime field of the
message header (see section 3.3.2). The MPR Selector Set SHOULD then
be updated as follows:
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 41]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
1 If there exists no MPR selector tuple with:
MS_main_addr == Originator Address
then a new tuple is created with:
MS_main_addr = Originator Address
2 The tuple (new or otherwise) with
MS_main_addr == Originator Address
is then modified as follows:
MS_time = current time + validity time.
Deletion of MPR selector tuples occurs in case of expiration of the
timer or in case of link breakage as described in the "Neighborhood
and 2-hop Neighborhood Changes".
A change in the neighborhood is detected when:
- The L_SYM_time field of a link tuple expires. This is
considered as a neighbor loss if the link described by the
expired tuple was the last link with a neighbor node (on the
contrary, a link with an interface may break while a link with
another interface of the neighbor node remains without being
observed as a neighborhood change).
- A new link tuple is inserted in the Link Set with a non
expired L_SYM_time or a tuple with expired L_SYM_time is
modified so that L_SYM_time becomes non-expired. This is
considered as a neighbor appearance if there was previously no
link tuple describing a link with the corresponding neighbor
node.
A change in the 2-hop neighborhood is detected when a 2-hop neighbor
tuple expires or is deleted according to section 8.2.
The following processing occurs when changes in the neighborhood or
the 2-hop neighborhood are detected:
- In case of neighbor loss, all 2-hop tuples with
N_neighbor_main_addr == Main Address of the neighbor MUST be
deleted.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 42]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
- In case of neighbor loss, all MPR selector tuples with
MS_main_addr == Main Address of the neighbor MUST be deleted
- The MPR set MUST be re-calculated when a neighbor appearance
or loss is detected, or when a change in the 2-hop
neighborhood is detected.
- An additional HELLO message MAY be sent when the MPR set
changes.
The link sensing and neighbor detection part of the protocol
basically offers, to each node, a list of neighbors with which it can
communicate directly and, in combination with the Packet Format and
Forwarding part, an optimized flooding mechanism through MPRs. Based
on this, topology information is disseminated through the network.
The present section describes which part of the information given by
the link sensing and neighbor detection is disseminated to the entire
network and how it is used to construct routes.
Routes are constructed through advertised links and links with
neighbors. A node must at least disseminate links between itself and
the nodes in its MPR-selector set, in order to provide sufficient
information to enable routing.
The proposed format of a TC message is as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ANSN | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertised Neighbor Main Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertised Neighbor Main Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This is sent as the data-portion of the general message format with
the "Message Type" set to TC_MESSAGE. The time to live SHOULD be set
to 255 (maximum value) to diffuse the message into the entire network
and Vtime set accordingly to the value of TOP_HOLD_TIME, as specified
in section 18.3.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 43]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
Advertised Neighbor Sequence Number (ANSN)
A sequence number is associated with the advertised neighbor
set. Every time a node detects a change in its advertised
neighbor set, it increments this sequence number ("Wraparound"
is handled as described in section 19). This number is sent
in this ANSN field of the TC message to keep track of the most
recent information. When a node receives a TC message, it can
decide on the basis of this Advertised Neighbor Sequence
Number, whether or not the received information about the
advertised neighbors of the originator node is more recent
than what it already has.
Advertised Neighbor Main Address
This field contains the main address of a neighbor node. All
main addresses of the advertised neighbors of the Originator
node are put in the TC message. If the maximum allowed
message size (as imposed by the network) is reached while
there are still advertised neighbor addresses which have not
been inserted into the TC-message, more TC messages will be
generated until the entire advertised neighbor set has been
sent. Extra main addresses of neighbor nodes may be included,
if redundancy is desired.
Reserved
This field is reserved, and MUST be set to "0000000000000000"
for compliance with this document.
A TC message is sent by a node in the network to declare a set of
links, called advertised link set which MUST include at least the
links to all nodes of its MPR Selector set, i.e., the neighbors which
have selected the sender node as a MPR.
If, for some reason, it is required to distribute redundant TC
information, refer to section 15.
The sequence number (ANSN) associated with the advertised neighbor
set is also sent with the list. The ANSN number MUST be incremented
when links are removed from the advertised neighbor set; the ANSN
number SHOULD be incremented when links are added to the advertised
neighbor set.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 44]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
In order to build the topology information base, each node, which has
been selected as MPR, broadcasts Topology Control (TC) messages. TC
messages are flooded to all nodes in the network and take advantage
of MPRs. MPRs enable a better scalability in the distribution of
topology information [1].
The list of addresses can be partial in each TC message (e.g., due to
message size limitations, imposed by the network), but parsing of all
TC messages describing the advertised link set of a node MUST be
complete within a certain refreshing period (TC_INTERVAL). The
information diffused in the network by these TC messages will help
each node calculate its routing table.
When the advertised link set of a node becomes empty, this node
SHOULD still send (empty) TC-messages during the a duration equal to
the "validity time" (typically, this will be equal to TOP_HOLD_TIME)
of its previously emitted TC-messages, in order to invalidate the
previous TC-messages. It SHOULD then stop sending TC-messages until
some node is inserted in its advertised link set.
A node MAY transmit additional TC-messages to increase its
reactiveness to link failures. When a change to the MPR selector set
is detected and this change can be attributed to a link failure, a
TC-message SHOULD be transmitted after an interval shorter than
TC_INTERVAL.
TC messages are broadcast and retransmitted by the MPRs in order to
diffuse the messages in the entire network. TC messages MUST be
forwarded according to the "default forwarding algorithm" (described
in section 3.4).
Upon receiving a TC message, the "validity time" MUST be computed
from the Vtime field of the message header (see section 3.3.2). The
topology set SHOULD then be updated as follows (using section 19 for
comparison of ANSN):
1 If the sender interface (NB: not originator) of this message
is not in the symmetric 1-hop neighborhood of this node, the
message MUST be discarded.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 45]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
2 If there exist some tuple in the topology set where:
T_last_addr == originator address AND
T_seq > ANSN,
then further processing of this TC message MUST NOT be
performed and the message MUST be silently discarded (case:
message received out of order).
3 All tuples in the topology set where:
T_last_addr == originator address AND
T_seq < ANSN
MUST be removed from the topology set.
4 For each of the advertised neighbor main address received in
the TC message:
4.1 If there exist some tuple in the topology set where:
T_dest_addr == advertised neighbor main address, AND
T_last_addr == originator address,
then the holding time of that tuple MUST be set to:
T_time = current time + validity time.
4.2 Otherwise, a new tuple MUST be recorded in the topology
set where:
T_dest_addr = advertised neighbor main address,
T_last_addr = originator address,
T_seq = ANSN,
T_time = current time + validity time.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 46]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
Each node maintains a routing table which allows it to route data,
destined for the other nodes in the network. The routing table is
based on the information contained in the local link information base
and the topology set. Therefore, if any of these sets are changed,
the routing table is recalculated to update the route information
about each destination in the network. The route entries are
recorded in the routing table in the following format:
1. R_dest_addr R_next_addr R_dist R_iface_addr
2. R_dest_addr R_next_addr R_dist R_iface_addr
3. ,, ,, ,, ,,
Each entry in the table consists of R_dest_addr, R_next_addr, R_dist,
and R_iface_addr. Such entry specifies that the node identified by
R_dest_addr is estimated to be R_dist hops away from the local node,
that the symmetric neighbor node with interface address R_next_addr
is the next hop node in the route to R_dest_addr, and that this
symmetric neighbor node is reachable through the local interface with
the address R_iface_addr. Entries are recorded in the routing table
for each destination in the network for which a route is known. All
the destinations, for which a route is broken or only partially
known, are not recorded in the table.
More precisely, the routing table is updated when a change is
detected in either:
- the link set,
- the neighbor set,
- the 2-hop neighbor set,
- the topology set,
- the Multiple Interface Association Information Base,
More precisely, the routing table is recalculated in case of neighbor
appearance or loss, when a 2-hop tuple is created or removed, when a
topology tuple is created or removed or when multiple interface
association information changes. The update of this routing
information does not generate or trigger any messages to be
transmitted, neither in the network, nor in the 1-hop neighborhood.
To construct the routing table of node X, a shortest path algorithm
is run on the directed graph containing the arcs X -> Y where Y is
any symmetric neighbor of X (with Neighbor Type equal to SYM), the
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 47]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
arcs Y -> Z where Y is a neighbor node with willingness different of
WILL_NEVER and there exists an entry in the 2-hop Neighbor set with Y
as N_neighbor_main_addr and Z as N_2hop_addr, and the arcs U -> V,
where there exists an entry in the topology set with V as T_dest_addr
and U as T_last_addr.
The following procedure is given as an example to calculate (or
recalculate) the routing table:
1 All the entries from the routing table are removed.
2 The new routing entries are added starting with the
symmetric neighbors (h=1) as the destination nodes. Thus, for
each neighbor tuple in the neighbor set where:
N_status = SYM
(there is a symmetric link to the neighbor), and for each
associated link tuple of the neighbor node such that L_time >=
current time, a new routing entry is recorded in the routing
table with:
R_dest_addr = L_neighbor_iface_addr, of the
associated link tuple;
R_next_addr = L_neighbor_iface_addr, of the
associated link tuple;
R_dist = 1;
R_iface_addr = L_local_iface_addr of the
associated link tuple.
If in the above, no R_dest_addr is equal to the main address
of the neighbor, then another new routing entry with MUST be
added, with:
R_dest_addr = main address of the neighbor;
R_next_addr = L_neighbor_iface_addr of one of the
associated link tuple with L_time >=
current time;
R_dist = 1;
R_iface_addr = L_local_iface_addr of the
associated link tuple.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 48]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
3 for each node in N2, i.e., a 2-hop neighbor which is not a
neighbor node or the node itself, and such that there exist at
least one entry in the 2-hop neighbor set where
N_neighbor_main_addr correspond to a neighbor node with
willingness different of WILL_NEVER, one selects one 2-hop
tuple and creates one entry in the routing table with:
R_dest_addr = the main address of the 2-hop neighbor;
R_next_addr = the R_next_addr of the entry in the
routing table with:
R_dest_addr == N_neighbor_main_addr
of the 2-hop tuple;
R_dist = 2;
R_iface_addr = the R_iface_addr of the entry in the
routing table with:
R_dest_addr == N_neighbor_main_addr
of the 2-hop tuple;
3 The new route entries for the destination nodes h+1 hops away
are recorded in the routing table. The following procedure
MUST be executed for each value of h, starting with h=2 and
incrementing it by 1 each time. The execution will stop if no
new entry is recorded in an iteration.
3.1 For each topology entry in the topology table, if its
T_dest_addr does not correspond to R_dest_addr of any
route entry in the routing table AND its T_last_addr
corresponds to R_dest_addr of a route entry whose R_dist
is equal to h, then a new route entry MUST be recorded in
the routing table (if it does not already exist) where:
R_dest_addr = T_dest_addr;
R_next_addr = R_next_addr of the recorded
route entry where:
R_dest_addr == T_last_addr
R_dist = h+1; and
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 49]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
R_iface_addr = R_iface_addr of the recorded
route entry where:
R_dest_addr == T_last_addr.
3.2 Several topology entries may be used to select a next hop
R_next_addr for reaching the node R_dest_addr. When h=1,
ties should be broken such that nodes with highest
willingness and MPR selectors are preferred as next hop.
4 For each entry in the multiple interface association base
where there exists a routing entry such that:
R_dest_addr == I_main_addr (of the multiple interface
association entry)
AND there is no routing entry such that:
R_dest_addr == I_iface_addr
then a route entry is created in the routing table with:
R_dest_addr = I_iface_addr (of the multiple interface
association entry)
R_next_addr = R_next_addr (of the recorded
route entry)
R_dist = R_dist (of the recorded
route entry)
R_iface_addr = R_iface_addr (of the recorded
route entry).
The nodes in the MANET network SHOULD be assigned addresses within a
defined address sequence, i.e., the nodes in the MANET SHOULD be
addressable through a network address and a netmask.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 50]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
Likewise, the nodes in each associated network SHOULD be assigned
addresses from a defined address sequence, distinct from that being
used in the MANET.
Any MANET node with associated networks or hosts SHOULD be configured
such that it has routes set up to the interfaces with associated
hosts or network.
OLSR itself does not perform packet forwarding. Rather, it maintains
the routing table in the underlying operating system, which is
assumed to be forwarding packets as specified in RFC1812.
A node MAY be equipped with multiple interfaces, some of which do not
participate in the OLSR MANET. These non OLSR interfaces may be
point to point connections to other singular hosts or may connect to
separate networks.
In order to provide connectivity from the OLSR MANET interface(s) to
these non OLSR interface(s), a node SHOULD be able to inject external
route information to the OLSR MANET.
Injecting routing information from the OLSR MANET to non OLSR
interfaces is outside the scope of this specification. It should be
clear, however, that the routing information for the OLSR MANET can
be extracted from the topology table (see section 4.4) or directly
from the routing table of OLSR, and SHOULD be injected onto the non
OLSR interfaces following whatever mechanism (routing protocol,
static configuration etc.) is provided on these interfaces.
An example of such a situation could be where a node is equipped with
a fixed network (e.g., an Ethernet) connecting to a larger network as
well as a wireless network interface running OLSR.
Notice that this is a different case from that of "multiple
interfaces", where all the interfaces are participating in the MANET
through running the OLSR protocol.
In order to provide this capability of injecting external routing
information into an OLSR MANET, a node with such non-MANET interfaces
periodically issues a Host and Network Association (HNA) message,
containing sufficient information for the recipients to construct an
appropriate routing table.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 51]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
The proposed format of an HNA-message is:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Network Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Netmask |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Network Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Netmask |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This is sent as the data part of the general packet format with the
"Message Type" set to HNA_MESSAGE, the TTL field set to 255 and Vtime
set accordingly to the value of HNA_HOLD_TIME, as specified in
section 18.3.
Network Address
The network address of the associated network
Netmask
The netmask, corresponding to the network address immediately
above.
Each node maintains information concerning which nodes may act as
"gateways" to associated hosts and networks by recording "association
tuples" (A_gateway_addr, A_network_addr, A_netmask, A_time), where
A_gateway_addr is the address of an OLSR interface of the gateway,
A_network_addr and A_netmask specify the network address and netmask
of a network, reachable through this gateway, and A_time specifies
the time at which this tuple expires and hence *MUST* be removed.
The set of all association tuples in a node is called the
"association set".
It should be noticed, that the HNA-message can be considered as a
"generalized version" of the TC-message: the originator of both the
HNA- and TC-messages announce "reachability" to some other host(s).
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 52]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
In the TC-message, no netmask is required, since all reachability is
announced on a per-host basis. In HNA-messages, announcing
reachability to an address sequence through a network- and netmask
address is typically preferred over announcing reachability to
individual host addresses.
An important difference between TC- and HNA-messages is, that a TC
message may have a canceling effect on previous information (if the
ANSN is incremented), whereas information in HNA-messages is removed
only upon expiration.
A node with associated hosts and/or networks SHOULD periodically
generate a Host and Network Association (HNA) message, containing
pairs of (network address, netmask) corresponding to the connected
hosts and networks. HNA-messages SHOULD be transmitted periodically
every HNA_INTERVAL. The Vtime is set accordingly to the value of
HNA_HOLD_TIME, as specified in section 18.3.
A node without any associated hosts and/or networks SHOULD NOT
generate HNA-messages.
Upon receiving a HNA message, and thus following the rules of section
3, in this version of the specification, the message MUST be
forwarded according to section 3.4.
In this section, the term "originator address" is used to designate
the main address on the OLSR MANET of the node which originally
issued the HNA-message.
Upon processing a HNA-message, the "validity time" MUST be computed
from the Vtime field of the message header (see section 3.3.2). The
association base SHOULD then be updated as follows:
1 If the sender interface (NB: not originator) of this message
is not in the symmetric 1-hop neighborhood of this node, the
message MUST be discarded.
2 Otherwise, for each (network address, netmask) pair in the
message:
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 53]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
2.1 if an entry in the association set already exists, where:
A_gateway_addr == originator address
A_network_addr == network address
A_netmask == netmask
then the holding time for that tuple MUST be set to:
A_time = current time + validity time
2.2 otherwise, a new tuple MUST be recorded with:
A_gateway_addr = originator address
A_network_addr = network address
A_netmask = netmask
A_time = current time + validity time
In addition to the routing table computation as described in section
10, the host and network association set MUST be added as follows:
For each tuple in the association set,
1 If there is no entry in the routing table with:
R_dest_addr == A_network_addr/A_netmask
then a new routing entry is created.
2 If a new routing entry was created at the previous step, or
else if there existed one with:
R_dest_addr == A_network_addr/A_netmask
R_dist > dist to A_gateway_addr of
current association set tuple,
then the routing entry is modified as follows:
R_dest_addr = A_network_addr/A_netmask
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 54]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
R_next_addr = the next hop on the path
from the node to A_gateway_addr
R_dist = dist to A_gateway_addr
R_next_addr and R_iface_addr MUST be set to the same
values as the tuple from the routing set with R_dest_addr
== A_gateway_addr.
Nodes, which do not implement support for non OLSR interfaces, can
coexist in a network with nodes which do implement support for non
OLSR interfaces: the generic packet format and message forwarding
(section 3) ensures that HNA messages are correctly forwarded by all
nodes. Nodes which implement support for non OLSR interfaces may
thus transmit and process HNA messages according to this section.
Nodes, which do not implement support for non OLSR interfaces can not
take advantage of the functionality specified in this section,
however they will forward HNA messages correctly, as specified in
section 3.
OLSR is designed not to impose or expect any specific information
from the link layer. However, if information from the link-layer
describing link breakage is available, a node MAY use this as
described in this section.
If link layer information describing connectivity to neighboring
nodes is available (i.e., loss of connectivity such as through
absence of a link layer acknowledgment), this information is used in
addition to the information from the HELLO-messages to maintain the
neighbor information base and the MPR selector set.
Thus, upon receiving a link-layer notification that the link between
a node and a neighbor interface is broken, the following actions are
taken with respect to link sensing:
Each link tuple in the local link set SHOULD, in addition to what is
described in section 4.2, include a L_LOST_LINK_time field.
L_LOST_LINK_time is a timer for declaring a link as lost when an
established link becomes pending. (Notice, that this is a subset of
what is recommended in section 14, thus link hysteresis and link
layer notifications can coexist).
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 55]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
HELLO message generation should consider those new fields as follows:
1 if L_LOST_LINK_time is not expired, the link is advertised
with a link type of LOST_LINK. In addition, it is not
considered as a symmetric link in the updates of the
associated neighbor tuple (see section 8.1).
2 if the link to a neighboring symmetric or asymmetric interface
is broken, the corresponding link tuple is modified:
L_LOST_LINK_time and L_time are set to current time +
NEIGHB_HOLD_TIME.
3 this is considered as a link loss and the appropriate
processing described in section 8.5 should be
performed.
Link layer notifications provide, for a node, an additional criterion
by which a node may determine if a link to a neighbor node is lost.
Once a link is detected as lost, it is advertised, in accordance with
the provisions described in the previous sections of this
specification.
Established links should be as reliable as possible to avoid data
packet loss. This implies that link sensing should be robust against
bursty loss or transient connectivity between nodes. Hence, to
enhance the robustness of the link sensing mechanism, the following
implementation recommendations SHOULD be considered.
Each link tuple in the local link set SHOULD, in addition to what is
described in section 4.2, include a L_link_pending field, a
L_link_quality field, and a L_LOST_LINK_time field. L_link_pending
is a boolean value specifying if the link is considered pending
(i.e., the link is not considered established). L_link_quality is a
dimensionless number between 0 and 1 describing the quality of the
link. L_LOST_LINK_time is a timer for declaring a link as lost when
an established link becomes pending.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 56]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
HELLO message generation should consider those new fields as follows:
1 if L_LOST_LINK_time is not expired, the link is advertised
with a link type of LOST_LINK.
2 otherwise, if L_LOST_LINK_time is expired and L_link_pending
is set to "true", the link SHOULD NOT be advertised at all;
3 otherwise, if L_LOST_LINK_time is expired and L_link_pending
is set to "false", the link is advertised as described
previously in section 6.
A node considers that it has a symmetric link for each link tuple
where:
1 L_LOST_LINK_time is expired, AND
2 L_link_pending is "false", AND
3 L_SYM_time is not expired.
This definition for "symmetric link" SHOULD be used in updating the
associated neighbor tuple (see section 8.1) for computing the
N_status of a neighbor node. This definition SHOULD thereby also be
used as basis for the symmetric neighborhood when computing the MPR
set, as well as for "the symmetric neighbors" in the first steps of
the routing table calculation.
Apart from the above, what has been described previously does not
interfere with the advanced link sensing fields in the link tuples.
The L_link_quality, L_link_pending and L_LOST_LINK_time fields are
exclusively updated according to the present section. This section
does not modify the function of any other fields in the link tuples.
The link between a node and some of its neighbor interfaces might be
"bad", i.e., from time to time let HELLOs pass through only to fade
out immediately after. In this case, the neighbor information base
would contain a bad link for at least "validity time". The following
hysteresis strategy SHOULD be adopted to counter this situation.
For each neighbor interface NI heard by interface I, the
L_link_quality field of the corresponding Link Tuple determines the
establishment of the link. The value of L_link_quality is compared
to two thresholds HYST_THRESHOLD_HIGH, HYST_THRESHOLD_LOW, fixed
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 57]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
between 0 and 1 and such that HYST_THRESHOLD_HIGH >=
HYST_THRESHOLD_LOW.
The L_link_pending field is set according to the following:
1 if L_link_quality > HYST_THRESHOLD_HIGH:
L_link_pending = false
L_LOST_LINK_time = current time - 1 (expired)
2 otherwise, if L_link_quality < HYST_THRESHOLD_LOW:
L_link_pending = true
L_LOST_LINK_time = min (L_time, current time +
NEIGHB_HOLD_TIME)
(the link is then considered as lost according to section
8.5 and this may produce a neighbor loss).
3 otherwise, if HYST_THRESHOLD_LOW <= L_link_quality
<= HYST_THRESHOLD_HIGH:
L_link_pending and L_LOST_LINK_time remain unchanged.
The condition for considering a link established is thus stricter
than the condition for dropping a link. Notice thus, that a link can
be dropped based on either timer expiration (as described in section
7) or on L_link_quality dropping below HYST_THRESHOLD_LOW.
Also notice, that even if a link is not considered as established by
the link hysteresis, the link tuples are still updated for each
received HELLO message (as described in section 7). Specifically,
this implies that, regardless of whether or not the link hysteresis
considers a link as "established", tuples in the link set do not
expire except as determined by the L_time field of the link tuples.
As a basic implementation requirement, an estimation of the link
quality must be maintained and stored in the L_link_quality field.
If some measure of the signal/noise level on a received message is
available (e.g., as a link layer notification), then it can be used
as estimation after normalization.
If no signal/noise information or other link quality information is
available from the link layer, an algorithm such as the following can
be utilized (it is an exponentially smoothed moving average of the
transmission success rate). The algorithm is parameterized by a
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 58]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
scaling parameter HYST_SCALING which is a number fixed between 0 and
1. For each neighbor interface NI heard by interface I, the first
time NI is heard by I, L_link_quality is set to HYST_SCALING
(L_link_pending is set to true and L_LOST_LINK_time to current time -
1).
A tuple is updated according to two rules. Every time an OLSR packet
emitted by NI is received by I, the stability rule is applied:
L_link_quality = (1-HYST_SCALING)*L_link_quality
+ HYST_SCALING.
When an OLSR packet emitted by NI is lost by I, the instability
rule is applied:
L_link_quality = (1-HYST_SCALING)*L_link_quality.
The loss of OLSR packet is detected by tracking the missing Packet
Sequence Numbers on a per interface basis and by "long period of
silence" from a node. A "long period of silence may be detected
thus: if no OLSR packet has been received on interface I from
interface NI during HELLO emission interval of interface NI (computed
from the Htime field in the last HELLO message received from NI), a
loss of an OLSR packet is detected.
Link hysteresis determines, for a node, the criteria at which a link
to a neighbor node is accepted or rejected. Nodes in a network may
have different criteria, according to the nature of the media over
which they are communicating. Once a link is accepted, it is
advertised, in accordance with the provisions described in the
previous sections of this specification.
In order to provide redundancy to topology information base, the
advertised link set of a node MAY contain links to neighbor nodes
which are not in MPR selector set of the node. The advertised link
set MAY contain links to the whole neighbor set of the node. The
minimal set of links that any node MUST advertise in its TC messages
is the links to its MPR selectors. The advertised link set can be
built according to the following rule based on a local parameter
called TC_REDUNDANCY parameter.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 59]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
The parameter TC_REDUNDANCY specifies, for the local node, the amount
of information that MAY be included in the TC messages. The
parameter SHOULD be interpreted as follows:
- if the TC_REDUNDANCY parameter of the node is 0, then the
advertised link set of the node is limited to the MPR
selector set (as described in section 8.3),
- if the TC_REDUNDANCY parameter of the node is 1, then the
advertised link set of the node is the union of its MPR set
and its MPR selector set,
- if the TC_REDUNDANCY parameter of the node is 2, then the
advertised link set of the node is the full neighbor link set.
A node with willingness equal to WILL_NEVER SHOULD have TC_REDUNDANCY
also equal to zero.
A TC message is sent by a node in the network to declare a set of
links, called advertised link set, which MUST include at least the
links to all nodes of its MPR Selector set, i.e., the neighbors which
have selected the sender node as a MPR. This is sufficient
information to ensure that routes can be computed in accordance with
section 10.
The provisions in this section specifies how additional information
may be declared, as specified through a TC_REDUNDANCY parameter.
TC_REDUNDANCY = 0 implies that the information declared corresponds
exactly to the MPR Selector set, identical to section 9. Other
values of TC_REDUNDANCY specifies additional information to be
declared, i.e., the contents of the MPR Selector set is always
declared. Thus, nodes with different values of TC_REDUNDANCY may
coexist in a network: control messages are carried by all nodes in
accordance with section 3, and all nodes will receive at least the
link-state information required to construct routes as described in
section 10.
MPR redundancy specifies the ability for a node to select redundant
MPRs. Section 4.5 specifies that a node should select its MPR set to
be as small as possible, in order to reduce protocol overhead. The
criteria for selecting MPRs is, that all strict 2-hop nodes must be
reachable through, at least, one MPR node. Redundancy of the MPR set
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 60]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
affects the overhead through affecting the amount of links being
advertised, the amount of nodes advertising links and the efficiency
of the MPR flooding mechanism. On the other hand, redundancy in the
MPR set ensures that reachability for a node is advertised by more
nodes, thus additional links are diffused to the network.
While, in general, a minimal MPR set provides the least overhead,
there are situations in which overhead can be traded off for other
benefits. For example, a node may decide to increase its MPR
coverage if it observes many changes in its neighbor information base
caused by mobility, while otherwise keeping a low MPR coverage.
The MPR coverage is defined by a single local parameter,
MPR_COVERAGE, specifying by how many MPR nodes any strict 2-hop node
should be covered. MPR_COVERAGE=1 specifies that the overhead of the
protocol is kept at a minimum and causes the MPR selection to operate
as described in section 8.3.1. MPR_COVERAGE=m ensures that, if
possible, a node selects its MPR set such that all strict 2-hop nodes
for an interface are reachable through at least m MPR nodes on that
interface. MPR_COVERAGE can assume any integer value > 0. The
heuristic MUST be applied per interface, I. The MPR set for a node
is the union of the MPR sets found for each interface.
Notice that MPR_COVERAGE can be tuned locally without affecting the
consistency of the protocol. For example, nodes in a network may
operate with different values of MPR_COVERAGE.
Using MPR coverage, the MPR selection heuristics is extended from
that described in the section 8.3.1 by one definition:
Poorly covered node:
A poorly covered node is a node in N2 which is covered by less
than MPR_COVERAGE nodes in N.
The proposed heuristic for selecting MPRs is then as follows:
1 Start with an MPR set made of all members of N with
willingness equal to WILL_ALWAYS
2 Calculate D(y), where y is a member of N, for all nodes in N.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 61]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
3 Select as MPRs those nodes in N which cover the poorly covered
nodes in N2. The nodes are then removed from N2 for the rest
of the computation.
4 While there exist nodes in N2 which are not covered by at
least MPR_COVERAGE nodes in the MPR set:
4.1 For each node in N, calculate the reachability, i.e.,
the number of nodes in N2 which are not yet covered
by at least MPR_COVERAGE nodes in the MPR set, and
which are reachable through this 1-hop neighbor;
4.2 Select as a MPR the node with highest willingness among
the nodes in N with non-zero reachability. In case of
multiple choice select the node which provides
reachability to the maximum number of nodes in N2. In
case of multiple nodes providing the same amount of
reachability, select the node as MPR whose D(y) is
greater. Remove the nodes from N2 which are now covered
by MPR_COVERAGE nodes in the MPR set.
5 A node's MPR set is generated from the union of the MPR sets
for each interface. As an optimization, process each node, y,
in the MPR set in increasing order of N_willingness. If all
nodes in N2 are still covered by at least MPR_COVERAGE nodes
in the MPR set excluding node y, and if N_willingness of node
y is smaller than WILL_ALWAYS, then node y MAY be removed from
the MPR set.
When the MPR set has been computed, all the corresponding main
addresses are stored in the MPR Set.
The MPR set of a node MUST, according to section 8.3, be calculated
by a node in such a way that it, through the neighbors in the MPR-
set, can reach all symmetric strict 2-hop neighbors. This is
achieved by the heuristics in this section, for all values of
MPR_COVERAGE > 0. MPR_COVERAGE is a local parameter for each node.
Setting this parameter affects only the amount of redundancy in part
of the network.
Notice that for MPR_COVERAGE=1, the heuristics in this section is
identical to the heuristics specified in the section 8.3.1.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 62]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
Nodes with different values of MPR_COVERAGE may coexist in a network:
control messages are carried by all nodes in accordance with section
3, and all nodes will receive at least the link-state information
required to construct routes as described in sections 9 and 10.
All the operations and parameters described in this document used by
OLSR for IP version 4 are the same as those used by OLSR for IP
version 6. To operate with IP version 6, the only required change is
to replace the IPv4 addresses with IPv6 address. The minimum packet
and message sizes (under which there is rejection) should be adjusted
accordingly, considering the greater size of IPv6 addresses.
The proposed constant for C is the following:
C = 1/16 seconds (equal to 0.0625 seconds)
C is a scaling factor for the "validity time" calculation ("Vtime"
and "Htime" fields in message headers, see section 18.3). The
"validity time" advertisement is designed such that nodes in a
network may have different and individually tuneable emission
intervals, while still interoperate fully. For protocol functioning
and interoperability to work:
- the advertised holding time MUST always be greater than the
refresh interval of the advertised information. Moreover, it
is recommended that the relation between the interval (from
section 18.2), and the hold time is kept as specified
in section 18.3, to allow for reasonable packet loss.
- the constant C SHOULD be set to the suggested value. In order
to achieve interoperability, C MUST be the same on all nodes.
- the emission intervals (section 18.2), along with the
advertised holding times (subject to the above constraints)
MAY be selected on a per node basis.
Note that the timer resolution of a given implementation might not be
sufficient to wake up the system on precise refresh times or on
precise expire times: the implementation SHOULD round up the
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 63]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
'validity time' ("Vtime" and "Htime" of packets) to compensate for
coarser timer resolution, at least in the case where "validity time"
could be shorter than the sum of emission interval and maximum
expected timer error.
NEIGHB_HOLD_TIME = 3 x REFRESH_INTERVAL
TOP_HOLD_TIME = 3 x TC_INTERVAL
DUP_HOLD_TIME = 30 seconds
MID_HOLD_TIME = 3 x MID_INTERVAL
HNA_HOLD_TIME = 3 x HNA_INTERVAL
The Vtime in the message header (see section 3.3.2), and the Htime in
the HELLO message (see section 6.1) are the fields which hold
information about the above values in mantissa and exponent format
(rounded up). In other words:
value = C*(1+a/16)*2^b [in seconds]
where a is the integer represented by the four highest bits of the
field and b the integer represented by the four lowest bits of the
field.
Notice, that for the previous proposed value of C, (1/16 seconds),
the values, in seconds, expressed by the formula above can be stored,
without loss of precision, in binary fixed point or floating point
numbers with at least 8 bits of fractional part. This corresponds
with NTP time-stamps and single precision IEEE Standard 754 floating
point numbers.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 64]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
Given one of the above holding times, a way of computing the
mantissa/exponent representation of a number T (of seconds) is the
following:
- find the largest integer 'b' such that: T/C >= 2^b
- compute the expression 16*(T/(C*(2^b))-1), which may not be a
integer, and round it up. This results in the value for 'a'
- if 'a' is equal to 16: increment 'b' by one, and set 'a' to 0
- now, 'a' and 'b' should be integers between 0 and 15, and the
field will be a byte holding the value a*16+b
For instance, for values of 2 seconds, 6 seconds, 15 seconds, and 30
seconds respectively, a and b would be: (a=0,b=5), (a=8,b=6),
(a=14,b=7) and (a=14,b=8) respectively.
WILL_NEVER = 0
WILL_LOW = 1
WILL_DEFAULT = 3
WILL_HIGH = 6
WILL_ALWAYS = 7
The willingness of a node may be set to any integer value from 0 to
7, and specifies how willing a node is to be forwarding traffic on
behalf of other nodes. Nodes will, by default, have a willingness
WILL_DEFAULT. WILL_NEVER indicates a node which does not wish to
carry traffic for other nodes, for example due to resource
constraints (like being low on battery). WILL_ALWAYS indicates that
a node always should be selected to carry traffic on behalf of other
nodes, for example due to resource abundance (like permanent power
supply, high capacity interfaces to other nodes).
A node may dynamically change its willingness as its conditions
change.
One possible application would, for example, be for a node, connected
to a permanent power supply and with fully charged batteries, to
advertise a willingness of WILL_ALWAYS. Upon being disconnected from
the permanent power supply (e.g., a PDA being taken out of its
charging cradle), a willingness of WILL_DEFAULT is advertised. As
battery capacity is drained, the willingness would be further
reduced. First to the intermediate value between WILL_DEFAULT and
WILL_LOW, then to WILL_LOW and finally to WILL_NEVER, when the
battery capacity of the node does no longer support carrying foreign
traffic.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 66]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
Sequence numbers are used in OLSR with the purpose of discarding
"old" information, i.e., messages received out of order. However
with a limited number of bits for representing sequence numbers,
wrap-around (that the sequence number is incremented from the maximum
possible value to zero) will occur. To prevent this from interfering
with the operation of the protocol, the following MUST be observed.
The term MAXVALUE designates in the following the largest possible
value for a sequence number.
The sequence number S1 is said to be "greater than" the sequence
number S2 if:
S1 > S2 AND S1 - S2 <= MAXVALUE/2 OR
S2 > S1 AND S2 - S1 > MAXVALUE/2
Thus when comparing two messages, it is possible - even in the
presence of wrap-around - to determine which message contains the
most recent information.
Currently, OLSR does not specify any special security measures. As a
proactive routing protocol, OLSR makes a target for various attacks.
The various possible vulnerabilities are discussed in this section.
Being a proactive protocol, OLSR periodically diffuses topological
information. Hence, if used in an unprotected wireless network, the
network topology is revealed to anyone who listens to OLSR control
messages.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 67]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
In situations where the confidentiality of the network topology is of
importance, regular cryptographic techniques such as exchange of OLSR
control traffic messages encrypted by PGP [9] or encrypted by some
shared secret key can be applied to ensure that control traffic can
be read and interpreted by only those authorized to do so.
In OLSR, each node is injecting topological information into the
network through transmitting HELLO messages and, for some nodes, TC
messages. If some nodes for some reason, malicious or malfunction,
inject invalid control traffic, network integrity may be compromised.
Therefore, message authentication is recommended.
Different such situations may occur, for instance:
1 a node generates TC (or HNA) messages, advertising links to
non-neighbor nodes:
2 a node generates TC (or HNA) messages, pretending to be
another node,
3 a node generates HELLO messages, advertising non-neighbor
nodes,
4 a node generates HELLO messages, pretending to be another
node.
5 a node forwards altered control messages,
6 a node does not broadcast control messages,
7 a node does not select multipoint relays correctly.
8 a node forwards broadcast control messages unaltered, but does
not forward unicast data traffic;
9 a node "replays" previously recorded control traffic from
another node.
Authentication of the originator node for control messages (for
situation 2, 4 and 5) and on the individual links announced in the
control messages (for situation 1 and 3) may be used as a
countermeasure. However to prevent nodes from repeating old (and
correctly authenticated) information (situation 9) temporal
information is required, allowing a node to positively identify such
delayed messages.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 68]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
In general, digital signatures and other required security
information may be transmitted as a separate OLSR message type,
thereby allowing that "secured" and "unsecured" nodes can coexist in
the same network, if desired.
Specifically, the authenticity of entire OLSR control messages can be
established through employing IPsec authentication headers, whereas
authenticity of individual links (situation 1 and 3) require
additional security information to be distributed.
An important consideration is, that all control messages in OLSR are
transmitted either to all nodes in the neighborhood (HELLO messages)
or broadcast to all nodes in the network (e.g., TC messages).
For example, a control message in OLSR is always a point-to-
multipoint transmission. It is therefore important that the
authentication mechanism employed permits that any receiving node can
validate the authenticity of a message. As an analogy, given a block
of text, signed by a PGP private key, then anyone with the
corresponding public key can verify the authenticity of the text.
OLSR does, through the HNA messages specified in section 12, provide
a basic mechanism for injecting external routing information to the
OLSR domain. Section 12 also specifies that routing information can
be extracted from the topology table or the routing table of OLSR
and, potentially, injected into an external domain if the routing
protocol governing that domain permits.
Other than as described in the section 20.2, when operating nodes,
connecting OLSR to an external routing domain, care MUST be taken not
to allow potentially insecure and un-trustworthy information to be
injected from the OLSR domain to external routing domains. Care MUST
be taken to validate the correctness of information prior to it being
injected as to avoid polluting routing tables with invalid
information.
A recommended way of extending connectivity from an existing routing
domain to an OLSR routed MANET is to assign an IP prefix (under the
authority of the nodes/gateways connecting the MANET with the exiting
routing domain) exclusively to the OLSR MANET area, and to configure
the gateways statically to advertise routes to that IP sequence to
nodes in the existing routing domain.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 69]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
Due to its proactive nature, the OLSR protocol has a natural control
over the flow of its control traffic. Nodes transmits control
message at predetermined rates fixed by predefined refresh intervals.
Furthermore the MPR optimization greatly saves on control overhead,
and this is done on two sides. First, the packets that advertise the
topology are much shorter since only MPR selectors may be advertised.
Second, the cost of flooding this information is greatly reduced
since only MPR nodes forward the broadcast packets. In dense
networks, the reduction of control traffic can be of several orders
of magnitude compared to routing protocols using classical flooding
(such as OSPF) [10]. This feature naturally provides more bandwidth
for useful data traffic and pushes further the frontier of
congestion. Since the control traffic is continuous and periodic, it
keeps more stable the quality of the links used in routing, where
reactive protocols, with bursty floodings for route discoveries and
repairs, may damage the link qualities for short times by causing
numerous collisions on those links, possibly provoking route repair
cascades. However, in certain OLSR options, some control messages
may be intentionally sent in advance of their deadline(TC or Hello
messages) in order to increase the reactiveness of the protocol
against topology changes. This may cause a small, temporary and
local increase of control traffic.
OLSR defines a "Message Type" field for control messages. A new
registry has been created for the values for this Message Type field,
and the following values assigned:
Message Type Value
-------------------- -----
HELLO_MESSAGE 1
TC_MESSAGE 2
MID_MESSAGE 3
HNA_MESSAGE 4
Future values in the range 5-127 of the Message Type can be allocated
using standards action [7].
Additionally, values in the range 128-255 are reserved for
private/local use.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 70]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
The authors would like to thank Joseph Macker
<macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil> and his team, including Justin Dean
<jdean@itd.nrl.navy.mil>, for their valuable suggestions on the
advanced neighbor sensing mechanism and other various aspects of the
protocol, including careful review of the protocol specification.
The authors would also like to thank Christopher Dearlove
<chris.dearlove@baesystems.com> for valuable input on the MPR
selection heuristics and for careful reviews of the protocol
specification.
During the development of this specification, the following list of
people contributed. The contributors are listed alphabetically.
Cedric Adjih
Project HIPERCOM
INRIA Rocquencourt, BP 105
78153 Le Chesnay Cedex, France
Phone: +33 1 3963 5215
EMail: Cedric.Adjih@inria.fr
Thomas Heide Clausen
Project HIPERCOM
INRIA Rocquencourt, BP 105
78153 Le Chesnay Cedex, France
Phone: +33 1 3963 5133
EMail: T.Clausen@computer.org
Philippe Jacquet
Project HIPERCOM
INRIA Rocquencourt, BP 105
78153 Le Chesnay Cedex, France
Phone: +33 1 3963 5263
EMail: Philippe.Jacquet@inria.fr
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 71]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
Anis Laouiti
Project HIPERCOM
INRIA Rocquencourt, BP 105
78153 Le Chesnay Cedex, France
Phone: +33 1 3963 5088
EMail: Anis.Laouiti@inria.fr
Pascale Minet
Project HIPERCOM
INRIA Rocquencourt, BP 105
78153 Le Chesnay Cedex, France
Phone: +33 1 3963 5233
EMail: Pascale.Minet@inria.fr
Paul Muhlethaler
Project HIPERCOM
INRIA Rocquencourt, BP 105
78153 Le Chesnay Cedex, France
Phone: +33 1 3963 5278
EMail: Paul.Muhlethaler@inria.fr
Amir Qayyum
Center for Advanced Research in Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
19 Ataturk Avenue
Islamabad, Pakistan
Phone: +92-51-2874115
EMail: amir@carepvtltd.com
Laurent Viennot
Project HIPERCOM
INRIA Rocquencourt, BP 105
78153 Le Chesnay Cedex, France
Phone: +33 1 3963 5225
EMail: Laurent.Viennot@inria.fr
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 72]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
[5] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[7] T. Clausen, P. Jacquet, A. Laouiti, P. Muhlethaler, A.
Qayyum and L. Viennot. Optimized Link State Routing Protocol.
IEEE INMIC Pakistan 2001.
[1] P. Jacquet, P. Minet, P. Muhlethaler, N. Rivierre. Increasing
reliability in cable free radio LANs: Low level forwarding in
HIPERLAN. Wireless Personal Communications, 1996.
[2] A. Qayyum, L. Viennot, A. Laouiti. Multipoint relaying: An
efficient technique for flooding in mobile wireless networks.
35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
(HICSS'2001).
[3] ETSI STC-RES10 Committee. Radio equipment and systems:
HIPERLAN type 1, functional specifications ETS 300-652, ETSI,
June 1996.
[4] P. Jacquet and L. Viennot, Overhead in Mobile Ad-hoc Network
Protocols, INRIA research report RR-3965, 2000.
[6] T. Clausen, G. Hansen, L. Christensen and G. Behrmann. The
Optimized Link State Routing Protocol, Evaluation through
Experiments and Simulation. IEEE Symposium on "Wireless
Personal Mobile Communications", September 2001.
[8] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October
1998.
[9] Atkins, D., Stallings, W. and P. Zimmermann, "PGP Message
Exchange Formats", RFC 1991, August 1996.
[10] P. Jacquet, A. Laouiti, P. Minet, L. Viennot. Performance
analysis of OLSR multipoint relay flooding in two ad hoc
wireless network models, INRIA research report RR-4260, 2001.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 73]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
Thomas Heide Clausen
Project HIPERCOM
INRIA Rocquencourt, BP 105
78153 Le Chesnay Cedex, France
Phone: +33 1 3963 5133
EMail: T.Clausen@computer.org
Philippe Jacquet,
Project HIPERCOM,
INRIA Rocquencourt, BP 105
78153 Le Chesnay Cedex, France
Phone: +33 1 3963 5263,
EMail: Philippe.Jacquet@inria.fr
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 74]
RFC 3626 Optimized Link State Routing October 2003
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Clausen & Jacquet Experimental [Page 75]