Re: [manet] Default metric in OLSRv2

[Thomas Heide Clausen <thomas at thomasclausen.org>]

All,

Can I make a couple of rush observations and a suggestion here,  
without taking side in this discussion just yet?

Observations:

	o	We agree that additive metrics should be in OLSRv2.

			=> 	They will be, we've got consensus on that,
				the metrics I-D contains that and it will be
				(I believe that I can safely engage all the authors)
				folded into the OLSRv2 specification as the WG
				has decided.

	o	ETX is a valuable example of a metric. There are existence
		proofs (plural) hereof from operational networks. It's hard
		to argue against that. It's also hard to argue that ETX is the
		be-all-end-all metric (but I think that nobody has suggested
		that either).

	o	Regardless of if ETX is to be included in the OLSRv2 spec
		or published as an independent spec (and I see and recognize
		arguments for and against both of these options), there's no
		current (IETF) specification of ETX. Consequently:

			=>	It's difficult for the WG to pronounce itself on the
				issue

			=>	There's no ETX-text to propose folding in to any
				specification, or to advance as a supplementary
				document (i.e. for the WG to adopt and to advance
				for publication).

Suggestion:

	o	Someone with experience in ETX and OLSR(v2) produce
		an individual I-D (short is good, shorter is better), and post
		to manet at ietf.org for further discussion.


Informally, as I know that Henning and Aaron have significant  
operational experience with ETX in OLSR(v2) networks, I'd think it  
interesting and a good idea if you were to produce such a document.  
I'd be happy [as OLSRv2 co-author] to help out, as will Emmanuel (he  
just confirmed this, as he's next to me) -- and I am sure that so will  
others.

I am sure that once a document exists, it will be a lot easier to  
understand what it is that we're discussing, what the right path for  
the content is etc.

Thoughts?

Thomas


On Oct 14, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:

> > I don't think this will work well for OLSRv2. Most people using  
> > OLSRv2
> for
> > research (instead of doing research on OLSRv2) will continue to use
> the "basic
> > RFC implementation" of OLSR... if the basic RFC does only contain
> hopcount
>
> That is not the proposal. See what's written in the metrics draft.
> (I agree what you indicate would not be acceptable. But that's why
> that isn't it.)
>
> The proposal is that the default is an additive metric of unspecified
> "real world" meaning. But it's still a metric, and not just hopcount.
> It's just not a specific ETC/delay/whatever metric. At least not
> specified as such. In a given deployment if you agree in advance that
> this is ETX, fine. But if you definitely want ETX then get an  
> allocation
> of one of the reserved metric code points specifically for that  
> purpose
> and use that.
>
> ********************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> distribute its contents to any other person.
> ********************************************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet