Re: [Roll] "Link quality" as a metric for MRHIF

Omprakash Gnawali <gnawali@cs.uh.edu> Tue, 05 June 2012 00:25 UTC

Return-Path: <gnawali@cs.uh.edu>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2F7E11E80C9 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 17:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2F3azhOwltXv for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 17:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dijkstra.cs.uh.edu (dijkstra.cs.uh.edu [129.7.240.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F09711E80C2 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 17:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (dijkstra.cs.uh.edu [127.0.0.1]) by dijkstra.cs.uh.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94FDD23CA9E for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 19:24:59 -0500 (CDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cs.uh.edu
Received: from dijkstra.cs.uh.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dijkstra.cs.uh.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AdygSjK+11fm for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 19:24:59 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from it.cs.uh.edu (www2.cs.uh.edu [129.7.240.6]) by dijkstra.cs.uh.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD4B223CAA2 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 19:24:56 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail-we0-f172.google.com (mail-we0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by it.cs.uh.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2313C2A280CE for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 19:22:16 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by werb13 with SMTP id b13so3684365wer.31 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 17:24:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.213.163 with SMTP id a35mr2097844wep.131.1338855897447; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 17:24:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.101.168 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 17:24:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <037178D2-ED90-4204-ACAA-982472DA767B@gmail.com>
References: <535F88D6-7E39-417A-BEB7-CC67B1FFE788@cisco.com> <CAErDfUR-x7QfhOuAJatCAfrHctY-E4BnJ5V6Sex+xsFVkkYeDg@mail.gmail.com> <037178D2-ED90-4204-ACAA-982472DA767B@gmail.com>
From: Omprakash Gnawali <gnawali@cs.uh.edu>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 19:24:36 -0500
Message-ID: <CAErDfUS7rbt-1t0BXFFZa+=cXAinckDdgM4ZJypXrcO_BBPoqA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "draft-ietf-roll-minrank-hysteresis-of@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-roll-minrank-hysteresis-of@tools.ietf.org>, "roll@ietf.org" <roll@ietf.org>, Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Roll] "Link quality" as a metric for MRHIF
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 00:25:02 -0000

On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 2, 2012, at 4:51 AM, Omprakash Gnawali <gnawali@cs.uh.edu> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> wrote:
>>> How is the "link quality" metric used as a selected metric in MRHOF?  As I read RFC 6551, the link quality container carries a list of individual link qualities.  To use the link quality metric in MRHOF, does the computing node add up all the link qualities from the container option to compute the parent path cost?  What about link quality sub-objects with link quality value "0"?
>>
>> Yes, adding up all the link quality level to compute the path cost.
>> Adding up all the link quality level, including a 0, will result in
>> some value which is converted to rank but it is not clear if MRHOF
>> would be the best objective function to use if you want to use link
>> quality level metric.
>
> Ok, then the MRHOF spec should be revised to drop link quality level as one of the candidate selected metrics or to specify in detail how to use link quality level as the selected metric.

Good suggestion. We will drop link quality level metrics as one of the
metrics that can be used with MRHOF.

- om_p