Subject: RE: [manet] where does OLSR loss most occur in lightly loadednetworks?

From: mase <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 11:10:23 +0900

Hi, Christopher,

At 10:11 04/12/03 +0000, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
>Proactive protocols
>don't queue packets because they can live without it.
>But they could, and then they could improve their packet
>loss results - at the expense of introducing delay. This
>has been suggested by Mase & Clausen in a recent ID that
>produced some disagreements in San Diego about whether
>queuing packets whilst waiting for routing is acceptable.
>There may be a difference in acceptability for queuing
>before a route is first established, and queuing for packet
>salvaging (some would accept the former but not the latter,
>others both, others neither - at least that's the impression I
>got).

I agree with your observation as a co-author of the ID cited above. The 
link buffering toghther with packet restoratio works to increase delay and 
to decrease packet loss. The packets in the link buffer wait to be sent 
until the corresponding  route entries are apdated. The amount of delay 
depends on the hello interval, node density and the size of link buffer and 
these parameters should be set approproately based on application and scenarios.

Cheers,
Kenichi

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

---

From: Thomas Clausen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 18:21:31 +0100

Hi Christopher, Tao, Mase & everybody else,

I obviously agree with what has been said by Chris & Mase.

One of the motives of the I-D that Mase and I released was indeed to 
try to "level the playing field" a little by suggesting that the link 
buffering and restoration mechanism be discussed and evaluated 
separately -- with the outcome of discovering if the techniques were 
applicable in MANETs (which seemed to be the item of 
disagreement/discussion in San Diego) and if so, how they would apply 
to both reactive and proactive protocols.

In addition to the trade-off Chris brought up (delay vs. loss), Alex 
Zinin brought the concern of where and how to buffer as a function of 
the traffic parameters up: large-bitrate flows imply requirements for 
potentially large buffers (in source or intermediate nodes) -- and its 
own set of problems.

--thomas

On 4 Dec 2004, at 03:10, mase wrote:

> I agree with your observation as a co-author of the ID cited above. 
> The link buffering toghther with packet restoratio works to increase 
> delay and to decrease packet loss. The packets in the link buffer wait 
> to be sent until the corresponding  route entries are apdated. The 
> amount of delay depends on the hello interval, node density and the 
> size of link buffer and these parameters should be set approproately 
> based on application and scenarios.
>
> Cheers,
> Kenichi
>
>
>
>