Re: [manet] New drafts for DLEP layer1 metrics
Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com> Mon, 13 September 2021 07:12 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 6BDA13A0C1D for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Sep 2021 00:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 HGdHNSov30il for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Sep 2021 00:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x131.google.com (mail-lf1-x131.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::131]) (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 C549C3A0C1F for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Sep 2021 00:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x131.google.com with SMTP id c8so19002478lfi.3 for <manet@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Sep 2021 00:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=bknqh0AUh71XTGrtJ8jVqnPOKfrN+oDJbwpu8cOa+wg=; b=ethQ/lizJbdR2uzODZz7u+l9bH2/KddwGUYSiBoyW5bwrrda4J8pdQtB1Kdib8Fp0g tnHwqxWXx7Xm79739cMCP4lRMQS34+BHJlDV+vSdcDWekXycoYvKF6ANuNqbUAzfKQI6 sls3zito0rBCZTMRUJEYBIggyInLM5mmS65Dh9Ezs4opxQBQM8hTtU7X/LR6GQ78O0ML xQcpKxr5LRtszwRoDBQ8hZvbD0+AHorr2u1PppzP1oGovDQ9Zn/JhVBLYnx0m6dWlsT2 /z42424n4jWS4kPs9doVSmKMFSgJeU1skzKMSgwOXzrfIcCuHthhTISpEkdPWihE0yB+ WfAw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=bknqh0AUh71XTGrtJ8jVqnPOKfrN+oDJbwpu8cOa+wg=; b=vf2xIebGxS2gZGCXdxvvtQ7jPJPWaZATJHcw3KmF0hEiiPyLSlIeMX4HRQFuTdlrXF uLsU9tM6ggfRoymEioQr6QfljpYmL86+E5VUkBmdaYIVmYURE87C32KBPqXzbOy0eJTp JKrPHp9kAxKRz5yzkYbkrvNGekS9JAdGHl/R/UJ2vjfnOoDNqRpM13ZyWVYytomlPccq u869rnWxAv06dDvmrrT6VV2nJXfDYIimAW+nv13PU2cCJUIVagtciw6dOWCQ7WQ/3IKb KDgiEtTeZIGRFBVzrOunLuO1lJn4eLuuuS0zMPF1r726uEqPpZsLbMpRqvP2sMUiu7HU rUrg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532j85czwlFNn7YydSpIw4uCHUChp8wPrnPBUPwkUPbk5gVIrmGV 1OWzIg4DstNvIHCwcloWi6dJip7/9morwCARWnh53eI0
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx6WwhbuNEAVOdqK4TxjnXZn88dIcyIZam1lNy5ikWTA3bdEQGehWYYKXMxx7l5wukOolvycQmMiLlASdSxOds=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:104e:: with SMTP id c14mr7759622lfb.277.1631517132769; Mon, 13 Sep 2021 00:12:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1628663779653.75584@fkie.fraunhofer.de> <CADnDZ89N7bNDvcqKne0BNPwiHN+tqCLOoapsOyaSFBYRfH4i2Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADnDZ89N7bNDvcqKne0BNPwiHN+tqCLOoapsOyaSFBYRfH4i2Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 09:11:40 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGnRvup11W4J8=BFDY56cSGmmDT+qQ4ugDBCMPsLrZ+pGDk5Gw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
Cc: "Rogge, Henning" <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>, "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/j9jYPe7yl9NrAb5fPjkz5PyGIAc>
Subject: Re: [manet] New drafts for DLEP layer1 metrics
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 07:12:22 -0000
On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 11:19 PM Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> wrote: >> I think the most work have to be done for the "BitError" TLV in the radio-quality draft... I am still not happy with the encoding but I am not quite sure what to do. > > > for the radi-quality-draft ....the error bit-rate not much value only if router knows the data rate/speed, which is specified in rfc8175, so I suggest the draft needs to show the importance of this item related to data item of speed. If you look up some technical specification of a digital radio, you will (most likely) find tables for each modulation that show the correlation between biterror-rate and (necessary) signal-to-noise ratio. This means a radio measuring the biterror rate can give you an estimate what error-rate you can expect at other modulations. The biterror rate will also make it possible to estimate the different frame-error-rates of small and large frames, which could give you a more precise way to calculate the link metric for a routing protocol. Henning Rogge
- [manet] New drafts for DLEP layer1 metrics Rogge, Henning
- Re: [manet] New drafts for DLEP layer1 metrics Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [manet] New drafts for DLEP layer1 metrics Henning Rogge
- Re: [manet] New drafts for DLEP layer1 metrics Abdussalam Baryun