From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 03:29:25 +0100 From: Linus =?utf-8?Q?L=C3=BCssing?= Message-ID: <20160109022925.GG5675@otheros> References: <2457136.iz2mu7y0Mc@voltaire> <20151231110712.GD30632@otheros> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20151231110712.GD30632@otheros> Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] B.A.T.M.A.N. V leaves the nest 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 Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:07:12PM +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote: > * Suggestion: Change "If the OGMv2 sequence number is not newer or equal > compared to the last received OGMV2 (from any neighbor for this > originator) and if the throughput is not better, drop the OGMv2" > to: > "[...] (from the currently selected router for this originator) [...]" > > (-> is another sequence number check here redundant? > see "Age check above"? maybe some merging+reordering here?) Another issue I just noticed with the according sentence we have in the spec right now: Bad news never travells: We would ignore updates from our selected router if the path throughput got worse - even if it's a new sequence number. * Add a branch: If seqno is new + from currently selected router: -> accept (even if path throughput is lower than with the previous seqno)