On 09/01/16 10:29, Linus Lüssing wrote:
> 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)

I think you are trying to say the same as what is written - just
reverting the condition to say "accept".

The spec says:

if (NOT(seqno newer or equal) AND NOT(better throughput)) then DROP

Therefore the statement "if the OGM is newer then accept it" is part of
this condition already, no ? Moreover, correct me if I am wrong, but any
new OGM should be accepted at this step, not only those arriving from
the selected router, hence your statement would be also a bit confusing
imho.


Cheers,


-- 
Antonio Quartulli