Re: [manet] Some comments on draft-funkfeuer-manet-olsrv2-etx-01

Henning Rogge <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de> Tue, 24 May 2011 14:29 UTC

Return-Path: <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>
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 9ACAFE0762 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2011 07:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.985
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.985 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.359, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UKHVRCXHSl6U for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2011 07:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a.mx.fkie.fraunhofer.de (a.mx.fkie.fraunhofer.de [IPv6:2001:638:401:102:1aa9:5ff:fe5f:7f22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 730F2E075D for <manet@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2011 07:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rufsun5.fkie.fgan.de ([128.7.2.5] helo=mailhost.fgan.de) by a.mx.fkie.fraunhofer.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>) id 1QOsbh-0001pm-Vk; Tue, 24 May 2011 16:29:14 +0200
Received: from stream.fkie.fgan.de ([128.7.5.148] helo=stream.localnet) by mailhost.fgan.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>) id 1QOsbh-0006Kf-NO; Tue, 24 May 2011 16:29:13 +0200
From: Henning Rogge <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>
To: manet@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 16:29:03 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-8-generic; KDE/4.6.2; i686; ; )
References: <BANLkTimnw2=d-8O7QeUu2=Q+ZfJ6dtWYzw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimnw2=d-8O7QeUu2=Q+ZfJ6dtWYzw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1391736.V6Up5ctUWq"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201105241629.09204.henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>
X-Virus-Scanned: yes (ClamAV 0.97/13107/Tue May 24 03:23:47 2011) by a.mx.fkie.fraunhofer.de
X-Scan-Signature: 054ccd22e44c7b570fe3109fd6105c99
Cc: David Young <dyoung@pobox.com>, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [manet] Some comments on draft-funkfeuer-manet-olsrv2-etx-01
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 24 May 2011 14:29:23 -0000

On Mon May 23 2011 19:46:46 Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> > > > How can packet sizes of lost packets be measured?
> > > 
> > > Maybe with a second packet sequence number that is only increased for
> > > 
> > > large packets ?
> 
> If we want exact information it seems that the source or dest_nieghbours
> may inform the destination of the lost packets sizes if requested by the
> destination. The source should be able to list all the sent packets SQ
> number with its size index by the packets destinations. The destination
> sends to source a request of the sizes of packets (using special packet
> for measure).
This might require a huge amount of data inside the packages because long 
bursts of packages might be lost.
 
> Or more simple method can be called the size SQ method proposed above, so
> the source, path_nodes and destination are counting the packet by possible
> categorized of size information/measured. We may have second/third/more
> sequence (size_sequence) in three or four as very large, large, medium,
> small. Therefore, when the dest size sequence count is different from the
> source it will notice the lost and measure the size.

On Tue May 24 2011 15:37:30 Georg Wittenburg wrote:
> Hi Henning, all,
> 
> I see. And I agree with you that in this case you would indeed need a
> second counter just for relevant packets. Possibly another TLV, if the
> overhead is acceptable.
I think it should be acceptable, we might even get away with a single byte 
sequence number, because we can detect overflows (more than 255 lost packages) 
with the help of the default package number.

Links which lost 200+ packages in a row would most likely be considered very 
bad anyways.

Henning Rogge
-- 
Diplom-Informatiker Henning Rogge , Fraunhofer-Institut für
Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie FKIE
Kommunikationssysteme (KOM)
Neuenahrer Straße 20, 53343 Wachtberg, Germany
Telefon +49 228 9435-961,   Fax +49 228 9435 685
mailto:henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de http://www.fkie.fraunhofer.de
GPG: E1C6 0914 490B 3909 D944 F80D 4487 C67C 55EC CFE0