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

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

Teco,

I think that "counting packets" is one tool that may be used, but by  
no means *the* tool to be used in all situations. If you're running  
over a lower layer with known delivery/drop properties and the ability  
to extract "other information" describing how good the link is  
(SNR, ...), then that "other information" would be a better choice for  
when setting quality.

Thomas


On Nov 9, 2009, at 11:31 PM, Teco Boot wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet