Subject: [manet] #44 (aodvv2): Hop count (submitted for Chris Dearlove)

From: "manet issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 03:38:41 -0000

#44: Hop count (submitted for Chris Dearlove)

 Despite saying that hop count is inadequate, it's the only metric
 supported. And unlike OLSRv2, which is designed so that the protocol
 can handle any future metric without change, that's not true here.
 That's a definite protocol weakness.

-- 
-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |      Owner:  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                 |     Status:  new
 Priority:  minor                  |  Milestone:
Component:  aodvv2                 |    Version:
 Severity:  Active WG Document     |   Keywords:  hop count
-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/manet/trac/ticket/44>
manet <http://tools.ietf.org/manet/>

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 21:16:35 -0700

Hello Chris,

I do not understand why you make the claim that AODVv2 cannot
handle future metric changes.  If nodes wish to use alternate metrics,
the current draft specifies mechanisms to insure that routes will
be selected based on the costs associated to those routes as
computed by the alternate metric.  If this is not true, could you
be more specific about how the intended mechanisms fail to do so?

Regards,
Charlie P.

-- 
Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 12:31:51 +0000

You need to change the implementation to handle a new metric type, I'm afraid I don't have the time this minute to check the function name that needs implementing - and is only specified for hop count. A new metric needs a new specification and implementation of that function.

-- 
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Information Assurance Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
[email-masked] | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles E. Perkins [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 21 July 2014 05:17
To: [email-masked]; Dearlove, Christopher (UK); [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [manet] #44 (aodvv2): Hop count (submitted for Chris Dearlove)

----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or from the internet.
Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any attachments or reply.
Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
--------------------------------------------------------

Hello Chris,

I do not understand why you make the claim that AODVv2 cannot handle future metric changes.  If nodes wish to use alternate metrics, the current draft specifies mechanisms to insure that routes will be selected based on the costs associated to those routes as computed by the alternate metric.  If this is not true, could you be more specific about how the intended mechanisms fail to do so?

Regards,
Charlie P.

--
Regards,
Charlie P.

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:42:23 +0200

> You need to change the implementation to handle a new metric type, I'm afraid I don't have the time this minute to check the function name that needs implementing - and is only specified for hop co…

I think you also need to work out a custom encoding/decoding for the
TLV value because there is no definition of a generic transport format
for the metric.

Henning Rogge