Re: [ASL] ASL questions

[Vikas K. <ka...@co...>]

On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Daniel LaFlamme wrote:

->Hello,
->
->
->I have a couple of questions about ASL.
->
->
->1. I was under the impression that when the routing daemon calls the
->route_request_done() function with the destination IP that cannot be found,
->the program trying to communicate with that IP should get "No route to host"
->and should fail. I had a routing daemon running that tried to establish a
->route to a host that an SSH client was trying to access. I have the routing
->daemon set to send a route request message 4 times, which it does, and when
->it fails to find a route (which is what should happen considering no other
->routing daemon is listening for its messages), it calls route_request_done()
->and that returns with no errors. At this point I would expect the SSH client
->to fail in its connection attempt but it does not. A short time later the
->daemon is trying to find the route again. Is this behavior expected?

Yes, I would think so. ASL does not keep any history. If it gets an
unroutable packet, it notifies the daemon. So if the ssh client retries,
the routing daemon will get a notification again. The routing daemon can
choose to maintain a history of recent route discovery attempts and
immediately return a failure. ASL is not hte right place to implement any
policy like this.


->
->2. I have my routing daemon operate on an interface with an IP of 10.1.1.2.
->When I have a client program try to access say 10.1.1.3 or anything in the
->10.x.x.x space, the routing daemon does not get a notification that it has
->to look for a route. However, when I have a client program try to access
->11.2.4.2 or something like that, the routing daemon gets a message from ASL
->to look for a route to that host. Is this behavior what is desired in most
->circumstances? It doesn't seem so to me. I thought by adding the deferred
->route when the routing daemon is initialized (as is done in Binita's AODV)
->would cause connections to any address to not be completed until the routing
->daemon found a route.

Are you using host specific routes, that is all subnet masks are
255.255.255.255. If so then the behavior you depict should not be
observed. In any case I cant really conclude much without looking at the
logs. If you have the DEBUG flag enabled (README tell you where to do
this), try looking at the output to see whats happening.


->
->A more general question that relates to question 2 above is what techniques
->are people using to test their adhoc routing daemons?
->

Form an ad hoc network, form topologies, measure throughput etc.
You can ask Binita Gupta for her MS thesis, she has lot of details on
testing.

You can also use a network of virtual user-mode-linux nodes,
http://user-mode-linux.net.

..vikas 


->
->Thanks for any input/clarification.
->
->--Dan
->
->
->
->
->-------------------------------------------------------
->This sf.net email is sponsored by: OSDN - Tired of that same old
->cell phone?  Get a new here for FREE!
->https://www.inphonic.com/r.asp?r=sourceforge1&refcode1=vs3390
->_______________________________________________
->aslib-users mailing list
->asl...@li...
->https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/aslib-users
->