Re: [manet] Question about OLSRv2 link metric implementation

I do agree with Chris - I've got about 5 other I-Ds taking cycles right now, so I do not have a good idea - but will think about it once they're out the door.

That said, I do think that it is a good initiative, Henning, and I would encourage (and offer assistance on) production of an ETX metric for OLSRv2.

I also would very much encourage documenting "The FunkFeuer Exeperience" in an informational RFC; I believe that as you guys have an operational, large and long-standing MANET running, it'd be valuable information for others deploying such networks. Thus, 100% support from me on that also.

Best,

Thomas

On May 10, 2012, at 11:08 , Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:

> I'm not a great fan of either. Allocating a whole range of type extensions may include type extensions with no need to communicate. And if link metric type X needs to communicate, it won't necessarily send link metrics as its supplementary information. But as you say, an ETX specific TLV isn't nice either.
> 
> I realise that anyone who says "I don't like either" should make a third proposal. Right now I don't have one, though I will think about it. This is really to say if anyone has any alternative suggestions, they would be welcome.
> 
> -- 
> Christopher Dearlove
> Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
> Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
> BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
> West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
> Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
> chris.dearlove@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com
> 
> BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
> Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
> Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: manet-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henning Rogge
> Sent: 10 May 2012 08:01
> To: manet@ietf.org
> Subject: [manet] Question about OLSRv2 link metric implementation
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I am working on reviving my Freifunk-ETX draft again and thinking about 
> to split it into two different drafts. One that discusses the general 
> aspects of an ETX metric implementation.
> 
> Most times ETX metrics are described as a symmetric metric, where the 
> link cost does include both directions of the link, and I think there 
> are several link layer designs where combining the packet loss in both 
> directions makes sense (not necessarily with the same weight).
> 
> For this both sides of the Metric implementation have to communicate 
> with each other outside the normal metric TLV described in the OLSRv2-draft.
> 
> Do you think it makes sense to ask IANA to allocate a generic "Private 
> Link Metric Data" TVL, that will use the same extension types as the 
> metric TLV in OLSRv2 and allows a metric implementation to exchange data 
> with the other side of the link?
> 
> Allocating an "ETX specific TLV" sounds even worse.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> ********************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> distribute its contents to any other person.
> ********************************************************************
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet