From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Marek Lindner Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:00:29 +0800 References: <20090722105639.GH32143@ma.tech.ascom.ch> <200908131756.57929.lindner_marek@yahoo.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200908140000.30125.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 Thursday 13 August 2009 23:07:06 Yang Su wrote: > Maybe I miss some thing here. What do you think would prevent A from > choosing via the long route (via B) ? The starting point (still using your example): * A points to E as it never learned about the long path. * B points to C because it learned about the long path but does not rebroadcast the packets from C because they are slower than the packets via A. * C uses the longer path. Your idea: Use the echo cancellation's answer to retrieve more information, especially when the TQ which is coming back is worse than my own I update my routing information. The situation now: * A still points to E because the echos coming from B do not contain TQ values that are worse than its own. * B will probably never route via A because the TQ values are much worse. * C is not affected. Did I overlook something ? Regards, Marek