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

[Ulrich Herberg <ulrich at herberg.name>]

Teco,

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Teco Boot <teco at inf-net.nl> wrote:
> What if someone defines a reliable transport and suppress
> repeating messages?

In that case, that mechanism of using packet seq. numbers would not
work. But I think this is okay, since the NHDP draft does not mandate
this mechanism. If one decides to use packet sequence numbers for
indicating lost packets, one probably has to assume a non-reliable
transport transport protocol such as UDP.

> Are we sure we want to use missing sequence numbers as
> indication of missed packets?

No, we don't want to mandate it. It is just *one* possible way, under
certain assumptions (no reliable transport protocol).

> What if other reasons caused the loss, e.g. tail drop during
> congestion caused by the MANET protocol itself?

Well, in that case the router will face problems anyway, since it does
not receive control traffic any more.

Ulrich

>
> 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
>
>