Re: [manet-dlep-rg] Latency

32 bit ms sounds good to me.

I wasn't suggesting X*hopcount was a good way of reporting latency, I was just giving you insight into a personal hack ;)

I think there is a general rule that should be covered by the 'Best Effort' statement:  In a multi-hop mesh, the metrics must reflect the fact it is multi-hop in a 'Best Effort' way.  That includes Latency, which I would consider a cumulative metric.

Rick Taylor

> -----Original Message-----
> From: manet-dlep-rg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-dlep-rg-
> bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
> Sent: 12 November 2013 15:34
> To: Henning Rogge
> Cc: DLEP Research Group (manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org); Teco Boot; Taylor, Rick
> Subject: Re: [manet-dlep-rg] Latency
>
>
> On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:27 AM, Henning Rogge <hrogge@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > How much resolution do we need?
> >
> > It milliseconds enough, or do we need to do better? Maybe 32 bit
> > integer in microseconds? That would give us enough precision but also
> > allows for high-delay radios.
> >
> > *looking at Stan's reply* rolling latency sounds reasonable, so its
> > similar to the "control package RTT" Rick Taylor told us about?
> >
> > So we are looking for a value that means "rough estimate of the time
> > between IP packet got delivered to radio and IP packet leaves other
> > radio" ?
>
> That sounds right to me.
>
> Regards,
> Stan
>
> >
> > Henning Rogge
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Taylor, Rick
> <Rick.Taylor@cassidian.com> wrote:
> >> From my experience:
> >>
> >> My test DLEP devices just make up a number (not very helpful)
> >>
> >> The radios I have used that support DLEP-00 natively report a latency
> in ms.  What that really is I have no idea.  Again, not very useful.
> >>
> >> I have my own DLEP proxy for some other radios, and I have just
> reported half of RTT on my control packets, which given I have jitter and
> back-off, again isn't very useful.
> >>
> >> BUT, Having a latency metric, even if it is almost meaningless, is
> better than no metric at all.
> >>
> >> I could suggest 100ms * hop-count works in mesh radios, as one of the
> simplest uses of latency is as an improved hopcount for split-horizoning
> in routing protocols.
> >>
> >> It's amazing what one will try to use, even if the quality of the data
> is very poor!
> >>
> >> Rick Taylor
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: manet-dlep-rg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-dlep-rg-
> >>> bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henning Rogge
> >>> Sent: 12 November 2013 13:23
> >>> To: Teco Boot
> >>> Cc: DLEP Research Group (manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org); Stan Ratliff
> >>> Subject: Re: [manet-dlep-rg] Latency
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I heard this too in the MANET Meeting...
> >>>
> >>> which made me wonder a bit because I was puzzled what was the
> >>> difference between the two.
> >>>
> >>> Can maybe the people who already have an implementation for DLEP tell
> >>> us what kind of Latency they implemented?
> >>>
> >>> Henning Rogge
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Op 11 nov. 2013, om 01:55 heeft Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
> >>> <sratliff@cisco.com> het volgende geschreven:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Point 11 - I didn't hear that. Really, I didn't hear any conclusions
> >>> about Latency. Other opinions?
> >>>>
> >>>> We discussed it and all speakers said it is an important metric, so
> it
> >>> will be an optional TLV in core document.
> >>>>
> >>>> Wasn't Henning tasked with verifying Latency and EFT?
> >>>>
> >>>> Teco
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> manet-dlep-rg mailing list
> >>>> manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dlep-rg
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingered
> >>> long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to
> >>> set sail for the stars - Carl Sagan
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> manet-dlep-rg mailing list
> >>> manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dlep-rg
> >> The information contained within this e-mail and any files attached to
> this e-mail is private and in addition may include commercially sensitive
> information. The contents of this e-mail are for the intended recipient
> only and therefore if you wish to disclose the information contained
> within this e-mail or attached files, please contact the sender prior to
> any such disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any
> disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited. Please also contact the
> sender and inform them of the error and delete the e-mail, including any
> attached files from your system. Cassidian Limited, Registered Office :
> Quadrant House, Celtic Springs, Coedkernew, Newport, NP10 8FZ Company No:
> 04191036 http://www.cassidian.com
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingered
> > long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to
> > set sail for the stars - Carl Sagan
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet-dlep-rg mailing list
> manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dlep-rg
The information contained within this e-mail and any files attached to this e-mail is private and in addition may include commercially sensitive information. The contents of this e-mail are for the intended recipient only and therefore if you wish to disclose the information contained within this e-mail or attached files, please contact the sender prior to any such disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited. Please also contact the sender and inform them of the error and delete the e-mail, including any attached files from your system. Cassidian Limited, Registered Office : Quadrant House, Celtic Springs, Coedkernew, Newport, NP10 8FZ Company No: 04191036 http://www.cassidian.com