Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [RFC] ELP

[Antonio Quartulli <ordex@autistici.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1365 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 07:32:06AM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> The problem with broadcasting the ELP packets is that they are always
> sent with the most robust coding rate. So ELP gives you an idea how
> good the 1Mbps broadcast channel is, not how good the unicast channel
> the automatic rate selection algorithm is using is. I think we
> discussed mixing in some unicast packets in the forward direction. The
> ELP packets containing the reports would stay the same, and so
> function as node detection. But a node could also send out unicast ELP
> packets to its known neighbours and they would be included into the
> LQ.

I agree with you Andrew, I didn't think about a concept yet, but adding a
unicast reply or something like that would help a lot imho. (Actually is this
what Babel do?)

> 
> There are obvious drawbacks. More overhead, especially in dense
> networks. It is also not clear if the measurements would be
> better.

What about having a dynamic advertisement period? Again, I don't have a concept
about that, but, if I remember correctly, there is another protocol called
Trickle[1] which does something similar. We could take some inspiration.


Cheers,

[1]: http://csl.stanford.edu/~pal/pubs/trickle-nsdi04.pdf

-- 
Antonio Quartulli

..each of us alone is worth nothing..
Ernesto "Che" Guevara

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]