IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Manet-dt] DYMO Routing Information Freshness Check

"Ian Chakeres" <ian.chakeres@gmail.com> Sun, 25 June 2006 20:15 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fub14-000116-BN; Sun, 25 Jun 2006 16:15:34 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fub13-000111-05 for manet-dt@ietf.org; Sun, 25 Jun 2006 16:15:33 -0400
Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.172]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fub11-0000xv-Me for manet-dt@ietf.org; Sun, 25 Jun 2006 16:15:32 -0400
Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m3so667553uge for <manet-dt@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Jun 2006 13:15:30 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Gd3J9E9fcwrJ/AOt+YH7mCXeTLT2otfGVatefYhLhgBp0/5YUpaK+McXLVXPEYhJXRgIaE6whvBirjBqFMzeCJVtDuy+l3Yc9rOzlAuydNt7sxYkQCk9/1TKcfCac2QsEP8g5fERcYweW9A+yRYySzzARZujvO9B6ytjr9iB1LA=
Received: by 10.66.243.2 with SMTP id q2mr4284077ugh; Sun, 25 Jun 2006 13:15:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.66.224.15 with HTTP; Sun, 25 Jun 2006 13:15:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <374005f30606251315o5ea2e2c9v8f9375152d6f26e5@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 13:15:30 -0700
From: "Ian Chakeres" <ian.chakeres@gmail.com>
To: "Koojana Kuladinithi" <koo@comnets.uni-bremen.de>
Subject: Re: [Manet-dt] DYMO Routing Information Freshness Check
In-Reply-To: <005201c6984f$1a5a1f30$4702a8c0@koojana>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <374005f30606241001v26f0df90sd6f36b12ad18f573@mail.gmail.com> <005201c6984f$1a5a1f30$4702a8c0@koojana>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69
Cc: manet-dt@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: manet-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: MANET Design Team <manet-dt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt>, <mailto:manet-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/manet-dt>
List-Post: <mailto:manet-dt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt>, <mailto:manet-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: manet-dt-bounces@ietf.org

About the second part of your email. I've revised that area
(inferior). Here is the new text. This allows Node.SeqNum ==
Route.SeqNum+1 if the route is invalid. It also allows Node.SeqNum ==
Route.SeqNum if the message is a RREP. I might be missing a case,
please give it a read and let me have your comments.

Thanks.
Ian

5.2.1.  Judging New Routing Information's Usefulness

   Given a routing table entry (Route.SeqNum, Route.HopCnt, and
   Route.ValidTimeout) and new routing information for a particular node
   in a RM (Node.SeqNum, Node.HopCnt, and RM message type - RREQ/RREP),
   the quality of the new routing information is evaluated to determine
   its usefulness.  The following comparisons are performed in order:

   1. Stale
      If Node.SeqNum - Route.SeqNum < 0 (using signed 16-bit arithmetic)
      the information is stale.  Using stale routing information is not
      allowed, since doing so might result in routing loops.

   2. Loop-prone
      If Node.SeqNum == Route.SeqNum the information maybe loop-prone,
      additional information must be examined.  If Route.HopCnt is
      unknown or set to zero (0), then the routing information is loop-
      prone.  Likewise, if Node.HopCnt is unknown or set to zero (0),
      then the routing information is loop-prone.  If Node.HopCnt >
      Route.HopCnt + 1, then the routing information is loop-prone.
      Using loop-prone routing information is not allowed, since doing
      so might result in routing loops.

   3. Inferior
      If Node.SeqNum == Route.SeqNum the information may be inferior,
      additional information must be examined.  If the route is valid
      (by examining Route.ValidTimeout and the current time), then the
      new information is inferior if Node.HopCnt > Route.HopCnt.  If the
      route is valid, then the new information is also inferior if
      Node.HopCnt == Route.HopCnt AND this RM is a RREQ.

   4. Fresh
      Routing information that does not match any of the above criteria
      is loop-free and better than the information existing in the
      routing table.  This information should be used to update the
      routing table.

_______________________________________________
Manet-dt mailing list
Manet-dt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email