On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 18:50:18 Andrew Lunn wrote:

quoted

we discussed various options but at the end decided to move forward with
the  compile time option. Personally, I doubt many people will want the
new routing algorithm until it has been stabilized (we will provide a
'default' option that enables B.A.T.M.A.N. IV).

So it is maybe not needed now, but once the code does start reaching
stability, run time selection becomes more interesting.

Agreed.

Interoperability has many meanings. I've seen it mean the protocol
does not actively destroy the operation of another protocol. I've seen
this in powerline networks. Company X proprietary powerline protocol
is interoperable with HomePlug in that it will not destroy the
HomePlug network if run in parallel with it. It won't talk to it
either...

There is no difference between compile time and run time option - both won't 
destroy the other.

By making it a runtime option, i don't need to recompile my kernel to
swap from one to the other. I just need "batctl algo V" or "batctl
algo IV". My kernel is interoperable, i just need to configure the
mesh correctly for it to work.

What might also be interesting is
batctl algo IV bat0
batctl algo V bat1
brctl addif br0 bat0
brctl addif br0 bat1

It won't give optimal routes, but it at least gets the two meshs
talking to each other.

True. That is an interesting point you are making here.

quoted

However, we are planing on integrating an extensible header format which 
allows to add features that will be backward compatible.

Ah, good. Is there any documentation about this?

I'll post a follow-up once it is available.

Regards,
Marek