[manet] (DLEP) Relative Link Quality and routing metrics
Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com> Fri, 20 April 2018 08:01 UTC
Return-Path: <hrogge@gmail.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 A05F212704A for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 01:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 8odc-S_Gbm2G for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 01:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22d.google.com (mail-qt0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B66F124D6C for <manet@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 01:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id f20-v6so8632142qtp.7 for <manet@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 01:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=yahOBKsWi6DRXkEZ3i4xuUldER7Lv2FhVXmhltzuTV8=; b=P1HBDOj3MTzwU29Xz2RMee5DK/FS4Zr6flUmj+17gLyrJMjkMFaoxyNSPwQmiv95sg XySNYMGocJKf6xrZc4bbrGdvEOv/4KIBtoZ34kLeEPiApaIDMFMSXJD2huwGqbqpfXrY 6iLDSuR2gVWWA+zdRZEHy972zVIqCTCr6Nw6VVMSDudFrdTFhOERtEjIDaAn+JForDZQ CaUZuZRGixapsfwM9/ah3nsuZKRwmhcJ8u7NXwsgIUcX0Wg18XKcgIs1Tw1LfrtI5h4r fa5/9z24fcybNribZLGunFi2Uy2r7p2C/lLrt8txWP8HI5cq1bBAJTTMy7xRW2oe0z0p vxCg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=yahOBKsWi6DRXkEZ3i4xuUldER7Lv2FhVXmhltzuTV8=; b=ZAmlg5zHtWY1zvFL8trBl0GeLu1nWPR68hOa+QQ5UZEfjVWELSuiwHlrxwcZxBGygD lnk1zL8vKdxhhUjgys/mIscnfPI5V92Fvcd/jOaItjG4E8aAS1r3uRD+uNpytBuKJhQV a4X+2xW/qSe7eagrbFCVrymDHmJxonPavcCYIEH5jWXWEq+B9NMQ2q3/oKG6ZmNrcrqc 4D/t36LDvjemATIkmLoy8oYl7QWnSbXWMqf3SILq7BNCYyqFxwNQEvFo/K7qwGJvgTw7 hmOIhGMdZECTelZzon4DVbCcsgYgTM93ba5UKCwzk4YJklvNhUL5uVg/Ts/fJRnGbByk pZCw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tBXuwaBELZ218m6RqP37vpiau/EleFsFdU2H3yn+ePJmTky55KY 0a1BI3Rqr4zwAkKukFriviKoTm1zFiVenZXWvYoCvA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4/BKP5UfTnsBitvsjfZhpD6KX3MufrKy41Mya0Egg3wIZNCbbVp983DZpSQ+muApPxgwc7kScBoZiVLS8lV7Ro=
X-Received: by 2002:aed:2864:: with SMTP id r91-v6mr9822051qtd.233.1524211287757; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 01:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.237.38.133 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 01:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 10:00:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGnRvupcyAKbR5mF8be_eKu5oKmAb-kW2xW19BJ7PHmPY_WQuA@mail.gmail.com>
To: MANET IETF <manet@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/TtqJeEmVTlGZFcKUFkHoHUMB20c>
Subject: [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 08:01:31 -0000
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] (DLEP) Relative Link Quality and routing … Henning Rogge
- Re: [manet] (DLEP) Relative Link Quality and rout… Rick Taylor
- Re: [manet] (DLEP) Relative Link Quality and rout… Henning Rogge
- Re: [manet] (DLEP) Relative Link Quality and rout… Teco Boot
- Re: [manet] (DLEP) Relative Link Quality and rout… Rick Taylor
- Re: [manet] (DLEP) Relative Link Quality and rout… Stan Ratliff
- Re: [manet] (DLEP) Relative Link Quality and rout… Henning Rogge
- Re: [manet] (DLEP) Relative Link Quality and rout… Juliusz Chroboczek