Subject: [manet] Route Metric Type Consideration for MANET Routers

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:42:03 +0200

Dear All,

***************  metric draft suggestions *************************
[draft-05] draft-dearlove-olsrv2-metrics-05
[draft-06] draft-dearlove-olsrv2-metrics-06

Regarding OLSRv2 metrics as in [draft-06]:
suggested that OLSRv2 Router uses new metric type: <dimensionless>
physical or non-physical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In [draft-06] it distinguishes between dimensionless-metric physical
type, and non-physical, However, it does not specify method of metrics
for routers nor requires IANA considerations.

Please note that : OLSRv2-15 draft in page 87, IANA section, mentions:
"assignment of link metric MUST specify the physical meaning" what
about non-physical?
*********************************************************************

I agree to some updates in the above new draft-06 (e.g. amend: router
to neighbor, and non-technical to non-physical), but disagree of
deleting some ideas or deleting sections 4.5 and 6. I suggest to make
the metric type flexible like in the draft-05 used, and to make the
draft intended status: standard. If there are reasons of the delete I
would like to understand. The suggestion can be for any other MANET
Router [AB] (e.g. AODVv2-metrics ). IMHO we need a specification for
metrics related to such router for many reasons [1] and [2].

It was suggested in [1] that some MANET Packets' [AB] header needs to
include metric-type, or in the meaning of standardizing information
exchange of metrics between MANET Routers [AB]. On the other hand,
many participants like the idea of dimensionless-type metrics.
Therefore, I suggest the draft-06 specifies OLSRv2 metrics
(dimensionless-type) as standard for OLSRv2 routers. Also in the
draft-06 it suggested metrics in the messaging as information between
OLSRv2 neighbor-routers. So does it mean that the metric configuration
is decided by the network or node manager (or even its future change),
we need to be sure.

Another suggestion is to have the metric type configured/decided by
the NHDP so to be flexible (we may need to update RFC6130). This will
require a standard for MANET Routers of Metric Types. I am using this
approach in my work of DSRv2 Interfaces' behaviors. I may write a
draft about MANET Routers Metric in future. However, I am preparing
another standard draft as I posted in June [3] [4] about NAP protocol
(to be submitted to ROLL WG), which will specify node ability in many
node-activities including routing and all-types-metrics. DSRv2 may use
NAP+NHDP at its MANET Interfaces [AB] as well.

If you have any advise, comment, or suggestion on this message, please
feel free to reply, thanking you,

[AB] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-baryun-manet-terminology-00.txt
[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg12430.html
[2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg12881.html
[3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lowpan/current/msg03525.html
[4] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg13070.html

Best Regards

Abdussalam Baryun
University of Glamorgan, UK