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

Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com> Fri, 20 April 2018 11:05 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 9A26A129C51 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 04:05:43 -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 rO7HwEBGVMyZ for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 04:05:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x229.google.com (mail-qt0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::229]) (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 6766B1270AE for <manet@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 04:05:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x229.google.com with SMTP id s2-v6so9058768qti.2 for <manet@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 04:05:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1JNfvSlg57BRB+jGFO+MgY6VaHxstVAvhqu/j+BCGJQ=; b=eFqFGBeJFRnHWxzrlWXF0aDkTCoK2YjfFMDC4fq7TQ0d7Au3PKBZAr3bTyV7y0jo5U 0nApf5sc8zryvnaFtMGKJq4El6uxHY1Pwuf6SnssKhvA98N6J2WwkwALPVhidqCD1mC5 hfVVsvcETAfm43eoyy9TfPrbI4RaKF61En1zZyMvJPaVN8MT1nQow51P4tY/VT/LHfeE mmpwu9BmrEkLUaPFZ3UZ803P/MM4g+VbMWt+lVvI4sB0HDaw5bjr0HkSBcjdwn54TErE aDyo3RshRHezFLqdvI1g1fJlH+6MvQxyTjIjxgpDNI0DsOf4UgPP3eq5WSzuqp5Z6VMu 3hRg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1JNfvSlg57BRB+jGFO+MgY6VaHxstVAvhqu/j+BCGJQ=; b=suAM6iKE49e0O0/QEkUSwyqvjMirJRJA8i/hab5R+bMtGEasdmqCJr4TOH+ideAq8h 5Hs0Ko4MzQu+BXbbXPWIbxgganJfCqMXHSdYtu53EAdOKoh/OKAvYwupg6iViHiPt47x C+GlWhaNPDbgS17MHW2QQtyFQpl3AHTsu81MezUPGRArEEjApijrOg6SQfDmFzCgikCd LkPa4clqObdXIykUWRqKbl3IvqxK4yPMpk2kKJLHroSqZ3XWyU5ZPss8uXyV5PL2D/HS nHjkb+c+SnTswMWnwiKxjpYM9gxZl4sRrUDcNZP3uflx3fbbXVGldwWYPYYWYx5fxvDn ozvw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tAgLl0GtajMi8dmpxSpMU6PPkmsOslZ/C5gPg3+/iVw3GEb1Zc9 K4R0K21wgl5xQ/zSntAAR60h2WmJ5ugFdl7EXUwAgg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4+WJIrdx1MJ7Pjaf/IlUluN7yWOF/aVwbJ00KsoB5ud3G4/PncsgdWKL5jQ1tCPxlzCGIWCRkBhkdCT2AKyPlQ=
X-Received: by 2002:aed:3169:: with SMTP id 96-v6mr10807406qtg.43.1524222340363; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 04:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.237.38.133 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 04:05:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1524222140.1526.7.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
References: <CAGnRvupcyAKbR5mF8be_eKu5oKmAb-kW2xW19BJ7PHmPY_WQuA@mail.gmail.com> <1524222140.1526.7.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
From: Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 13:05:09 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGnRvup1CUQZ3QwKrVt-FOWkfkUiTpRbOPQQBZNRz1gqN2A8og@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
Cc: "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/YPHdC9C-geS2mgxoGqxLhnvej5g>
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 11:05:43 -0000

Sorry,

but this does not help...

lets say I estimate the link cost for a link (based on data-rate) to be 1000...

if the radio reports RLQ=100, I would keep the 1000... but how do I
modify it for a RLQ of 80... or 50... or 1?

If I cannot integrate the value into the cost metric, I have no use
for the value. Unfortunately it is often the ONLY value the radio
reports.

Henning

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Rick Taylor
<rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com> wrote:
> 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