Re: [Aodvimpl] Increasing path length for 1-hop neighbors

[Marc M. <ma...@co...>]

Erik Nordstr=F6m wrote:

> On Mon, 2002-06-24 at 22:20, Marc Mosko wrote:

 >
 > Overall, I believe you put to much effort in finding loopholes in the
 > wording, instead of trying to understand what the draft really says.
 > Don't take me wrong, there are lots of things in the draft that many
 > would like to see changed. But you must also understand that any chang=
es
 > you propose, someone else may find hard to understand.

Let me try to start over.  I'm not trying to be difficult about
the wording.  The issue with 'active' is that it's an important
word in the draft so I think it would be good to use it
carefully, but is somewhat beside the main issue I was
trying to raise.  I did a bit too much speculation about
possible interpretations of the rules in the previous email.
So, please let me rephrase.  I will also try not to speculate
about what should happen.  My purpose in posting this is
to get feedback from others about what they think should
happen.

Main point: the behavior of a node is ill-defined
when a 1-hop neighbor becomes a multi-hop neighbor through RREQ or
RREP updates to the routing table.  The reclassification as
a multi-hop neighbor might or might not be true in fact, but it
is the nodes 'best knowledge' of the network at a given point
in time. Such updates may happen without any data packets
flowing at that point in time.  I have found in simulation
that this may lead to the issues below, which are
interlinked.

The way one answers them may have noticable effects on
performance and maybe interoperability. If someone will
say that there's no interoperability problems however you
answer the questions, that's great.

In specific:

(1) If a one-hop neighbor N becomes a multi-hop destination,
what do you do to the other destinations that used N as
the next hop?  It appears by the draft that you do
nothing.

(2) What should you do with the Hello timer? Since
this is not a 'link break' event, it appears that
by the rules it will remain running.  If it remains running,
what do you do when the timer expires?

(3) If the next hop N for a route R is not listed in the
routing table as a 1-hop neighbor because N was
redefined as a multihop neighbor, should a node respond
to RREQ for R?  By the rules, since
all routes are active it appears that you should
send a RREP assuming the sequence numbers work out.

(4) Is it acceptable to have the next hop for a route
be an address that is not a known 1-hop neighbor?  I think
this would have implications on the pre-cursor lists.

Thank you,
Marc Mosko
U.C. Santa Cruz