From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Marek Lindner Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 18:58:34 +0800 Message-ID: <7470581.2UlicqNZs0@voltaire> In-Reply-To: <20151231110712.GD30632@otheros> References: <2457136.iz2mu7y0Mc@voltaire> <20151231110712.GD30632@otheros> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart25069273.OyzIShGTl6"; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" 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 --nextPart25069273.OyzIShGTl6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi, quick summary of the discussion we had: > * Is the check "If the received neighbor is not (yet) a router, > drop the OGMv2" still necessary? If yes why? that appeared to be a simple misunderstanding of our documentation. The phrase was updated to: If the OGMv2 was received through a neighbor that is not (yet) a router, drop the OGMv2. If the neighbor is not known the link throughput also is not known which is a requirement for the protocol to function. > * 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?) Yes, you are right - this seems redundant. The second 'age' check has been removed from the documentation. > * What does "is adopted"/"are applied" mean in section 3.2.2 and > section 4? Maybe clarify when the internal stats are updated and > when the OGMv2? Each of the mentioned sections clearly states the intend: * 3.2.2: If the initial checks above have passed, the internal stats are updated .. * 4: When an OGMv2 is to be re-broadcasted some of the message fields must be changed others must be left unchanged. All fields not mentioned in the following section remain untouched: > * Suggestion: > * Move "forward penalties are applied" to section 4 > and change it to "forward penalties are applied to the OGMv2" Forward penalties are applied on reception but only to routing tables used for forwarding. > * Change "Path Throughput is adopted if its lower than the link > throughput to the neighbor, otherwise the link throuput is > adopted" to: > "If the link throughput to the neighbor this OGMv2 was > received from is lower than the Path Throughput of the OGMv2 > then set the Path Throughput of the OGMv2 to this link throughput." Good suggestion! We changed it to: If the link throughput to the neighbor this OGMv2 was forwarded by is lower than the path throughput of the OGMv2, then this lower link throughput is adopted. > * Remove "The Path throughput for the considered outoging > interface is adopted" from section 4. Forward penalties are applied on a per-outgoing interface basis. This can not be done in a global manner. Thanks again for the thorough review! Cheers, Marek --nextPart25069273.OyzIShGTl6 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAABCAAGBQJWmNDaAAoJEFNVTo/uthzA4P8H+gNWRrOUCXcfoL381J4ItGEE 2MyaYEAmosrn0h64QfbIqNbJ5f/m1sEy3hVES1AqNhZxc+zXBkJ2ovTNi3BgmZjb 2+XsmWzHwyiao1kTzEheQQoYejjSzNnbZZf/+CD8rmMiLJ+Dm8L/krLD4xlu8QGO /TBxNz138tHal0goQRb3r5SVnJKsSZgaMFGUg87sXmP6qhMlA9OKRJONhHwCKyw2 pe7fQODJ9WIbtDwSoIgqa/G6OwF2RjCaWwDDEz6qtfqrwGces2WHZgvQfQoDS/5W KnLRheNvoZ2mBdylj3wzpSJAJI0+1YPcTF9UkafKbwJjD/vnyqg13D1Li9JrvYo= =v3tX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart25069273.OyzIShGTl6--