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

Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> Sun, 03 June 2012 11:59 UTC

Return-Path: <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
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 45C1921F867F for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 04:59:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.201, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 jpp9UZcOmsUF for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 04:59:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ABF021F867D for <roll@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 04:59:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yhq56 with SMTP id 56so2708416yhq.31 for <roll@ietf.org>; Sun, 03 Jun 2012 04:59:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date:to; bh=QLT6QpUA7JIWZSJCaHzacv+rOBg+7GQnnL7KgpTlEvc=; b=zz/mHOKoHlYhLYor82tFX9bqdH+Eoesuho9hgNRD/cZvetlad2j7KgkE0IxpNvX215 jApRK6kmBTLV8B77Pxnou5E23mYEdBeKN8ef/2mC52vYv0a1xrOJcI4H0Xwqgpj+DK01 jsd+lZvntsGCTCx1+q1Uvr0xQWgYgclh/NvkBzZZclxwheszm6bz+P13Zb6cWnq2nCOK Zj2haTmTAzzOrkJXiDgw/6vTO1FZ7QzRznbitgvGBJq/9w18Omkz8gKUJ0tkZ2dGv/7j SXYVnh8k/FbIhduNLM79qZX0X+OYUFGx5AJ6qUPoA/rIi89AgH9Ty4ybTUTcAWK2iDUy q5lA==
Received: by 10.236.187.2 with SMTP id x2mr3822833yhm.42.1338724766115; Sun, 03 Jun 2012 04:59:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.28.172.207] (h114.178.216.66.static.ip.windstream.net. [66.216.178.114]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v16sm10556687anh.22.2012.06.03.04.59.22 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 03 Jun 2012 04:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
References: <535F88D6-7E39-417A-BEB7-CC67B1FFE788@cisco.com> <CAErDfUR-x7QfhOuAJatCAfrHctY-E4BnJ5V6Sex+xsFVkkYeDg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAErDfUR-x7QfhOuAJatCAfrHctY-E4BnJ5V6Sex+xsFVkkYeDg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Message-Id: <037178D2-ED90-4204-ACAA-982472DA767B@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B206)
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 07:59:28 -0400
To: Omprakash Gnawali <gnawali@cs.uh.edu>
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: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 11:59:28 -0000

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.

- Ralph

> 
> - om_p
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll