Re: [manet] (DLEP) Relative Link Quality and routing metrics

Rick Taylor <> Fri, 20 April 2018 11:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBFDA1270AE for <>; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 04:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7IYY0ILI4FCI for <>; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 04:02:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D19731250B8 for <>; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 04:02:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([fe80::753b:fa82:5c0:af0d]) by ([fe80::753b:fa82:5c0:af0d%10]) with mapi; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:02:24 +0100
From: Rick Taylor <>
To: "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [manet] (DLEP) Relative Link Quality and routing metrics
Thread-Index: AQHT2H3P2AD+KQM9E02EQt7YBt8CaqQJbFsA
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 11:02:20 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <0baf71cd-3bda-402f-bf2c-870702f2578b>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [manet] (DLEP) Relative Link Quality and routing metrics
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 11:02:31 -0000

I have always suggested that RLQ should be a measure of how hard the
modem is working to maintain the link, i.e. the higher the RLQ, the
more stable the link is, and a low RLQ indicates that the link may well
radically change metrics, or dissapear soon.

One can imagine a sophisticated modem maintiaining a link in very
adverse conditions, reporting a low RLQ, but otherwise good metrics.

Whether RLQ is a good metric to use as a route cost is a more difficult
question.  I've always been of the opinion that RLQ and Resources make
a good tie-breakers, but CDR and Latency make better 'primary' metrics.

Hope that helps a little?


On Fri, 2018-04-20 at 10:00 +0200, Henning Rogge wrote:
> Hello,
> I am currently looking for a good way to integrate the RLQ value of
> DLEP into a cost based routing metric, e.g. DAT. But I am not sure
> how
> to do this...
> has anyone here good experience using RLQ and maybe an advise how
> "hard" you should penalize a link with a RLQ less than 100?
> Henning Rogge
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list