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

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

Hi Ulrich,

>-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>Van: Ulrich Herberg [mailto:ulrich at herberg.name]
>Verzonden: maandag 9 november 2009 23:41
>Aan: Teco Boot
>CC: Dearlove, Christopher (UK); manet at ietf.org
>Onderwerp: Re: [manet] NHDP: Link quality based on seq-num
>
>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.

You missed my point.
The protocol would suppress the repeated info.

>
>> 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).

But it is an impossible way, as defined today in the spec.

>
>> 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.

And send more traffic. See a nearby museum for what can happen if a system
is speeding up its own explosion. 

Teco.


>
>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
>>
>>