Re: [manet] NHDP: Link quality based on seq-num

["Teco Boot" <teco at inf-net.nl>]

What if someone defines a reliable transport and suppress 
repeating messages?
Are we sure we want to use missing sequence numbers as 
indication of missed packets?
What if other reasons caused the loss, e.g. tail drop during 
congestion caused by the MANET protocol itself?

Teco.

>-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>Van: manet-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces at ietf.org] Namens
>Ulrich Herberg
>Verzonden: maandag 9 november 2009 22:11
>Aan: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
>CC: manet at ietf.org
>Onderwerp: Re: [manet] NHDP: Link quality based on seq-num
>
>On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
><Chris.Dearlove at baesystems.com> wrote:
>> My, not fully worked out, thought is that per interface
>> packet sequence numbers should be allowed, or even
>> preferred. That leaves a procedural issue of how to get
>> from where we are to where we want to be.
>
>I agree that we should allow packet sequence numbers per interface. At
>the moment, I cannot think about a good reason for not preferring
>them, but maybe there is...
>
>
>Ulrich
>_______________________________________________
>manet mailing list
>manet at ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet