Subject: [manet] Please help.

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:00:20 +0900

Hi,

I've read an LANDMAR protocol (draft, Dec. 17, 2001) draft recently.
I am so curious about why the sequence number is increased by two in which is specified at 6.3.1 and 6.4.1.
If you know the reason, would you please kindly let me know it?

Thanks in advance.

-
Myongsu.

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---

From: Xiaoyan Hong <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:51:54 -0800 (PST)

Hi, Myongsu,

The way LANMAR using the sequence number follows DSDV, i.e., for
an update from a source, the sequence number is increased by two. Other
nodes when finding a landmark failure or a link break, increase the
sequence number by 1.  In this case, a link break message can be
propagated and the update from the source can replace any old entries.
Let me know if you have further questions.

Thanks,

Xiaoyan

---

From: Xiaoyan Hong <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:51:54 -0800 (PST)

Hi, Myongsu,

Thanks,

Xiaoyan

---

From: "Tao Lin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 17:42:51 -0500

The TBRPF draft says  "To provide increased robustness when sufficient
bandwidth is available, ..." What does this increased robustness refer to?
Does this mean short response latency to link failures, higher throughput or
maintenance of shortes path to all destinations when the topology changes or
potentially something else? Do you have any analytical results? I would like
to see whether this idea can apply to some other protocols.

Thanks!

Tao

---

From: "Tao Lin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 17:42:51 -0500

Thanks!

Tao

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 21:11:26 -0800

Tao,

> Does this mean short response latency to link failures, 

Yes.  You are referring to the option in which a node reports
its entire source tree instead of only part of its source tree.
This will provide each node with more alternate paths and thus
increase the probability that an alternate path is immediately
known following a link failure.  However, this probability is 
already very high, so the improvement may be only slight.

Another (perhaps better) way to increase robustness is to 
report (part of) a biconnected subgraph instead of a tree, which 
is also allowed by TBRPF. This would provide two disjoint paths 
to each destination. 

Richard

> higher throughput or

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 21:11:26 -0800

Tao,

Richard