Subject: [manet] AODV - Destination Sequence Number

From: "Nicola Alagia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 09:44:56 +0200

Hi all,
I've a question about the update of the Destination Sequence Number (in AODV), made by the receiver node (i.e. when a node that is the destination node receive a RREQ and reply with a RREP).

In the following I refer to the draft-13.

At page 10 (section 6.1. Maintaining Sequence Numbers) I read:
"  A destination node increments its own sequence number in two
   circumstances:
    - [...]
    -  Immediately before a destination node originates a RREP in
       response to a RREQ, it MUST update its own sequence number to
       the maximum of its current sequence number and the destination
       sequence number in the RREQ packet."

Instead, at page 16 (section 6.6.1. Route Reply Generation by the Destination) I read:
"  If the generating node is the destination itself, it MUST increment
   its own sequence number by one if the sequence number in the
   RREQ packet is equal to that incremented value.  Otherwise, the
   destination does not change its sequence number before generating
   the RREP message.  The destination node places its (perhaps newly
   incremented) sequence number into the Destination Sequence Number
   field of the RREP, and enters the value zero in the Hop Count field
   of the RREP."

So, has the destination node to update his sequence number before generating the RREP message?
And what happens if a destination node has a sequence number "N" and receive a RREQ message containing a destination sequence number equals to (or grater than) "N+2"?

Thanks for replies!

-----
 Nicola Alagia
 Masterando Area eTECH
 [email-masked]
-----
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:50:19 -0700

I believe for correct operation the destination sequence number must
be greater than or equal to the destination sequence number in the
RREQ AND greater than the previous destination sequence number by at
least 1.

I agree the draft could be clearer here.

Ian Chakeres

>Nicola Alagia wrote: