From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Marek Lindner Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:42:21 +0800 References: <20090722105639.GH32143@ma.tech.ascom.ch> <200908101616.50082.lindner_marek@yahoo.de> In-Reply-To: <200908101616.50082.lindner_marek@yahoo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200908120042.21853.lindner_marek@yahoo.de> Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] batman goes looping... Reply-To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Id: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking On Monday 10 August 2009 16:16:49 Marek Lindner wrote: > Excellent question - it should. I will check the code later to verify that > this is the case. > However, this is not related to the echo cancellation anymore. I inspected the code for behaviour in the case you outlined. I think our dropping policy might be a bit too strict. I suggest the following behaviour: * New OGMs are processed and rebroadcasted as usual. * Known OGMs (the sequence number is not new but we did not hear this sequence number via that neighbor) are processed and rebroadcasted as well. * Duplicates (known sequence number via a neighbor that sent us this sequence number before are dropped. Objections / ideas ? Regards, Marek