From: Guus Sliepen Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 22:06:22 +0000 (+0000) Subject: Discuss how sending ADD_EDGEs would be better than sending ADD_HOSTs. X-Git-Tag: import-tinc-1.1~785^2~481 X-Git-Url: https://git.meshlink.io/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=3cd238f4e338f257ff61d58a9979b54344ee462f;p=meshlink Discuss how sending ADD_EDGEs would be better than sending ADD_HOSTs. --- diff --git a/doc/CONNECTIVITY b/doc/CONNECTIVITY index 8ccc0de6..f9976250 100644 --- a/doc/CONNECTIVITY +++ b/doc/CONNECTIVITY @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ maintain a stable network. provided that the entire resulting derived work is distributed under the terms of a permission notice identical to this one. - $Id: CONNECTIVITY,v 1.1.2.5 2001/07/22 17:41:52 guus Exp $ + $Id: CONNECTIVITY,v 1.1.2.6 2001/07/23 22:06:22 guus Exp $ 1. Problem ========== @@ -231,3 +231,99 @@ could let ADD_HOST(F,E) win. D receives ADD_HOST(C,F) from E, and notes that C is already known: since "F" > "B", D removes the ADD_HOST(C,B), closes the connection with C, in favour of the new one. + +Ok, time to forget this crap. + +1.2.2 +----- + +The problem with the current ADD/DEL_HOST technique is that each host only +knows the general direction in which to send packets for the other hosts. It +really doesn't know much about the true topology of the network, only about +it's direct neighbours. With so little information each host cannot make a +certain decision which it knows for sure all the others will decide too. + +Let's do something totally different. Instead of notifying every host of the +addition of a new host, which is represented by a vertex in a graph, lets send +out notifications of new connections, which are the edges in a graph. This is +rather cheap, since our graphs are (almost) spanning trees, there is +approximately one edge for each vertex in the graph, so we don't need to send +more messages. Furthermore, an edge is characterized by two vertices, so we +only send a fixed amount of extra information. The size/complexity of the +problem therefore does not increase much. + +What is the advantage of notifying each vertex of new edges instead of new +vertices? Well, all the vertices now know exactly which connections are made +between each host. This was not known with the former schemes. + +Ok back to our problem: + + A-----B-----C + + + + D-----E-----F + +Edges are undirected, and are characterised by the vertices it connects, sorted +alphabetically, so the edges in the two graphs are: + +(A,B), (B,C), (D,E) and (E,F). + +So again we have that A wants to connect to D, and F wants to connect to C, +both at the same time. The following loop will occur: + + A-----B-----C + | ^ + | | + v | + D-----E-----F + +Instead of sending ADD_HOSTs, lets assume the hosts send ADD_EDGEs. So, after +making the connections: + + 1 A sends ADD_EDGE(A,D) to B + A sends ADD_EDGE(A,B) to D + A sends ADD_EDGE(B,C) to D + D sends ADD_EDGE(A,D) to E + D sends ADD_EDGE(D,E) to A + D sends ADD_EDGE(E,F) to A + + C sends ADD_EDGE(C,F) to B + C sends ADD_EDGE(A,B) to F + C sends ADD_EDGE(B,C) to F + F sends ADD_EDGE(C,F) to E + F sends ADD_EDGE(D,E) to C + F sends ADD_EDGE(E,F) to C + + 2 B receives ADD_EDGE(A,D) from A: + B sends ADD_EDGE(A,D) to C + B receives ADD_EDGE(D,E) from A: + B sends ADD_EDGE(D,E) to C + B receives ADD_EDGE(E,F) from A: + B sends ADD_EDGE(E,F) to C + ... + + B receives ADD_EDGE(C,F) from C, notes that both C and F are already known, + but that the edge (C,F) was not known, so a loop has been created: + + +Ok, how to resolve the loop? Remeber, we want to do that in such a way that it +is consistent with the way all the other hosts resolve the loop. Here is the +things B does when it notices that a loop is going to be formed: + + B performs a Breadth First Search from the first element of the list of all + known hosts sorted alfabetically, in this case A, and thereby finds a + spanning tree. (This might later be changed into a minimum spanning tree + alhorithm, but the key point here is that all hosts do this with exactly the + same starting parameters.) All known edges that are not in the spanning tree + are marked inactive. + +An edge marked inactive does not mean anything, unless this edge is connected +to B itself. In that case, B will stop sending messages over that edge. B might +consider closing this edge, but this is not really needed. Keeping it means no +DEL_EDGE has to be sent for it, and if another edge is removed (which will +quite certainly split the graph if it's a spanning tree), this edge might be +reactivated, without the need of sending a new ADD_EDGE for it. On the other +hand, we mustn't keep to many inactive edges, because we want to keep the +number of known edges linear to the number of hosts (otherwise the size of the +problem will grow quadratically).