IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com> Fri, 20 April 2018 11:02 UTC

Return-Path: <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBFDA1270AE for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 04:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7IYY0ILI4FCI for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 04:02:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tropicalstormsoftware.com (mail.tropicalstormsoftware.com [188.94.42.120]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D19731250B8 for <manet@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 04:02:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com ([fe80::753b:fa82:5c0:af0d]) by tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com ([fe80::753b:fa82:5c0:af0d%10]) with mapi; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:02:24 +0100
From: Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
To: "hrogge@gmail.com" <hrogge@gmail.com>, "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>
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: <1524222140.1526.7.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
References: <CAGnRvupcyAKbR5mF8be_eKu5oKmAb-kW2xW19BJ7PHmPY_WQuA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGnRvupcyAKbR5mF8be_eKu5oKmAb-kW2xW19BJ7PHmPY_WQuA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <0baf71cd-3bda-402f-bf2c-870702f2578b>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/1sw_w5Pfydm2KvDBHDVd80ca1Z0>
Subject: Re: [manet] (DLEP) Relative Link Quality and routing metrics
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/manet/>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=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?

Rick

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
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email