public inbox for b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Linus Lüssing" <linus.luessing@ascom.ch>
To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking
	<b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org>
Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] BATMAN routing
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 11:09:26 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101207100926.GA18505@Sellars> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101202120210.GB13912@ritirata.org>

Hi Antonio,

thanks for the feedback on the exponential weighted average.

> IMHO this is not the best solution. Probably it could better than the
> actual strategy, but, as TCP demonstrates, this is not a really nice way
> of evaluating the RQ.
Well, I guess TCP could have used a weighted window for doing its RTT
estimations, too, couldn't it? Do you know if there has been a
particular design decision to using an exponential weighted
average instead of a weighted window here?

> 
> Imho, since we have more and more information than
> TCP for evaluating the new RQ, we could try to make a better choice
> considering "more values": instead of using only the deltaSEQ and the
> oldRQ, we could try to apply a function that can weight also the previous
> history of the link (of course with a limit).
> Something like
Hmm, I think with an exponential weighted average we are weighting
the previous history as well, aren't we? And due to the
exponential behaviour, history further in the past will be
considered less - which sounds similar to the scheme proposed by
Hlabishi with a wighted window, doesn't it? And by the way,
an exponential weighted average should consid "more value" compared
to the weighted window, shouldn't it? The window is limited in size
and packets get kicked out again, while in an exponential weighted average,
even a veeeery old packet still has an influence (though a veeeery
little one then, too ;) ).

One thing that might be something not easily doable with an exponential
weighted average is changing the weight of a single, previously
received packet on demand (we cannot suddenly say that we now want to make the
packet we received 3 seconds ago now 5 times more important). But
I guess that's not needed with the current ideas so far, is it?

For changing the weight of a just received packet, doing special
weighting could even be easier, as a different α could be applied
for this single packet. For instance there were some discussions
if we should send larger packets for packet loss probing from time
to time and giving these a higher priority.
> 
> newRQ = f(window[0], ...., window[N-1]) in which, each OGM (received or
> not) can be weighted in a different way depending on its position.
Yes, I think that's what Hlabishi had in mind, too.

I actually started doing some googling and there seem there seem to
be even more ways of how to weight a set of samples. Anyone with
some more knowledge in the field of signal processing? Or
economics / stock markets :D?


Hlabishi, I'd be curious if there was a certain design decision
for using a weighted window in favour for other weigthing
techniques and if you considered using other
techniques, too. Or was the idea of using a weighted window due to
the fact, that we are already having a window and that you did not
want to temper too much with that?


Cheers, Linus

  parent reply	other threads:[~2010-12-07 10:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <mailman.14.1290812292.944.b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org>
     [not found] ` <AANLkTimR7VU95r3C-=C9rn5ftZahKkNTu3-cU-Vft+VZ@mail.gmail.com>
2010-11-28 22:01   ` [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Fwd: BATMAN routing hlabishi kobo
2010-11-29 20:13     ` Linus Lüssing
2010-11-29 22:23       ` Linus Lüssing
2010-11-29 22:31     ` [B.A.T.M.A.N.] " hlabishi kobo
2010-11-30 17:26       ` Marek Lindner
2010-12-01  9:46       ` hlabishi kobo
2010-12-01 12:30         ` Marek Lindner
2010-12-02 10:27           ` Linus Lüssing
2010-12-02 12:02             ` Antonio Quartulli
2010-12-06 10:40               ` Daniele Furlan
2010-12-06 16:20                 ` Marek Lindner
2010-12-06 17:06                   ` Daniele Furlan
2010-12-07 10:09               ` Linus Lüssing [this message]
2010-12-11  9:51         ` hlabishi kobo
2010-12-20  9:05           ` Linus Lüssing
2011-02-24  9:58             ` hlabishi kobo
2011-02-24 10:23               ` Sven Eckelmann
2011-02-28 10:46                 ` hlabishi kobo
2011-02-28 12:03                   ` Sven Eckelmann
     [not found]                     ` <AANLkTinja_Hq4ze-fOFbHRK-iDzzA3Tk0oAsJ+CB=M2S@mail.gmail.com>
2011-02-28 19:29                       ` Sven Eckelmann
     [not found]                         ` <AANLkTikj8oj26P_F1LTiGWnt2R=29VESfpD1ZsfeL4X0@mail.gmail.com>
2011-03-08  9:52                           ` Sven Eckelmann
2011-03-17 22:40                             ` hlabishi kobo
2011-03-18 11:18                               ` Sven Eckelmann
2011-03-21 22:40                                 ` hlabishi kobo
2011-03-21 23:01                                   ` Sven Eckelmann
2011-04-03 21:10                                     ` hlabishi kobo
2011-04-03 21:25                                       ` Sven Eckelmann
2011-04-19 10:21                                         ` hlabishi kobo
2010-11-29 22:31     ` [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Fwd: " Chris Lang
2010-11-28 21:28 [B.A.T.M.A.N.] " hlabishi kobo

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20101207100926.GA18505@Sellars \
    --to=linus.luessing@ascom.ch \
    --cc=b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox