Re: [Manet-dt] DYMO SeqNum Decisions

I think this case is handled by Node.HopCnt > Route.HopCnt +1
(loop-prone) and Node.HopCnt == Route.HopCnt +1 (inferior/superior),
and Node.HopCnt == Route.HopCnt (inferior/superior).

In this case, the info is only inferior for RREQ.

Ian

I'll send out my new proposed text in a minute.

On 8/28/06, Koojana Kuladinithi <koo@comnets.uni-bremen.de> wrote:
> Hi Ian
>
> I have a small clarification to your slides. You have listed all
> lopp-prone, stale & inferior cases (1st & 2nd slides), which we should
> drop the RM.
>
> Isn't that following case is missing ?
>
> "[When Seq Nums are equal]If the route is valid (by examining
> Route.ValidTimeout and the current time), then the
>       new information is inferior if Node.HopCnt > Route.HopCnt"
>
> Koojana
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ian Chakeres [mailto:ian.chakeres@gmail.com]
> > Sent: 13 August 2006 00:40
> > To: manet-dt@ietf.org; Elizabeth M. Belding (work); Charles
> > E. Perkins (work)
> > Subject: [Manet-dt] DYMO SeqNum Decisions
> >
> >
> > As an exercise in ensuring dymo sequence numbers work
> > properly, I've created a few slides discussing important dymo
> > sequence number decisions.
> >
> > Pages 1 & 2 talk about judging routing information
> > usefulness. The goal is to not have loops, while not
> > requiring nodes to increment their OwnSeqNum unless
> > absolutely necessary. Incrementing OwnSeqNum essentially
> > disqualifies existing routing information in the network that
> > may not be bad.
> >
> > Pages 3 & 4 talk about incrementing OwnSeqNum. Since nodes
> > issuing RREQ don't know the state of routing tables at
> > intermediate nodes, they need to increment their sequence
> > number. Otherwise, receiving nodes might discard this
> > information. The target on the other hand has more
> > information from the RREQ message (last known values and some
> > information about the route traversed). The target can use
> > this information to optimize sequence number incrementing.
> >
> > Intermediate nodes that append their routing information have
> > two options, updating their sequence number and ensure it
> > will be fresh at other nodes, or not.  If the sequence number
> > is not incremented it might not be considered fresh by
> > intermediate nodes. It is not clear what the recommended
> > procedure should be. Please make a suggestion. I suggest
> > incrementing OwnSeqNum.
> >
> > Page 5 talks about the cases when an Intermediate node could
> > reply. Currently we don't define intermediate node replies,
> > but it is a useful concept. One more thing, I've introduced a
> > concept "MaxAge" which is the maximum amount of time a piece
> > of routing information can be maintained. This is to assist
> > in reboots, by having a hard deadline on the maximum amount
> > of time that a node must wait before participating.
> >
> > Please review the flowcharts and let me know if something
> > doesn't make sense or is wrong.
> >
> > Ian Chakeres
> >
>
>

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