Re: [manet] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7466 (7477)

[Henning Rogge <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 3:07 PM Christopher Dearlove
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Which is why you retain the metric information while not using the link, ready to reinstate it if you discover it’s good again.
>
> And I was addressing the suggestion that you know the link is broken. Presumably from L2 or similar. Using missing HELLO messages is one way to use link quality, but the two are not inseparably linked. You can use link quality based on anything you like, L2 information on/off is one possibility.

Ahh, sorry... misunderstanding... I know the link is gone because I
switched it off in the link emulation to see what happens... so OLSR
does not know. It's the simulation of a relevant problem for mobile
network nodes... I thought the "metric gets worse if no Hello comes
in" of DAT would deal with it, but discovered that the TCs never get
the new metrics because of the disrupted link.

> Both ends need to be running the same algorithm with the same data, which is not usually available. If it is, fine (and then actually you don’t need quite a lot else). But if not, you are definitely risking creating routing loops. (Always a danger if information is not fresh, but increased here.)

Hmm... if I have a link between router A and router B (and any kind of
topology around them), would any router except B itself put the
outgoing metric from B to A into a TC?

Henning