[manet] OLSRv2 draft

I think - both how I was coming round to thinking about it, but this was reinforced by Julius’ comment, that the emphasis is wrong in the current responsive OLSV2 draft.

Rather than presenting this as “in this scenario, you can do this” with the implication that will work (but it only sometimes might) instead I think the emphasis should be:

In cases where routers send messages infrequently, for any reason, it takes time for a new router to learn about remote routers, unlike remote routers learning about new routers, assuming responsive messages.

That asymmetry can be broken if an additional form of responsive message is sent - a TC message in response to a new tuple in the Advertised Remote Router Set.

In the extreme case - only responsive messages - this becomes necessary, not just advisable. But that should be an after comment, not the basis.

To address Julius’ point, will that solve all your problems? Probably not in general. But that’s not new. OLSRv2 with its large number of options (dynamic parameters, responsive messages, different kinds of intervals) is in many ways a framework for a specialised network to pick and choose from - as well of course as an out of the box case that often works. This is therefore nothing new in that regard.

If there’s any interest - there might or might not be - I think changing the emphasis in that way would be more appropriate.

Christopher
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]