Subject: question about QoS for AODV draft

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 13:25:37 +0300

Hi:

I have read an expired draft "QoS for AODV" recently.  
I have several questions about this extension.

1. Does an intermdediate node need to make resouce reservation after
forwarding of RREP? (it seems that link is established after forwarding of
RREP)
2. does intermediate node hold the bandwidth/delay information about
downstream node? if so, how can it get these info? if not, intermediate node
can not reply the RREQ.
3. does this extension use priority queue algorithm in intermediate node?

I feel confused with this draft.   Are there any plan to refresh this draft?

I think QoS communication need end-to-end reservation or priority
configuration, but AODV try to reply RREQ at intermediate node, is AODV not
suitable for QOS communication?

I just enter this ML recently, if someone have the copy of discussion about
QoS for AODV, can u forward it to me?
 Besides, are there any research/implementation works now on QoS extention
for AODV?

----------------------------------------------------
Leping HUANG
Research Engineer
Nokia Research Center Japan
2-13-5, Nagata-cho Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0014, Japan
Tel: +81-3-3592-3528  Fax: +81-3-3592-3555 
-----------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 08:12:43 -0700

Hello,

Just a quick response; hopefully more later

> forwarding of RREP? (it seems that link is established after forwarding of

It needs to make a short-lived reservation after forwarding RREQ,
and a longer term reservation after forwarding RREP.

> downstream node? if so, how can it get these info? if not, intermediate node

Nodes do not keep information about downstream nodes.  The intention
is that a node doesn't forward the RREQ if it cannot satisfy the
QoS requirement.

> 3. does this extension use priority queue algorithm in intermediate node?

That is a matter for implementation, not the protocol specfication.

> I feel confused with this draft.   Are there any plan to refresh this draft?

Yes, with a better way to specify QoS needs.  Please let me know
if this message helps dispel the confusion.

> suitable for QOS communication?

I hope so, in view of the comments above.

Regards,
Charlie P.