[aodvv2-discuss] 1/CONTROL_TRAFFIC_LIMIT
- From: Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 19:40:00 -0700
Hello folks,
On 4/19/2016 2:42 PM, Lotte Steenbrink wrote:
I think I agree with Justin. If we receive a RREP it pretty much
means we sent the RREQ, so we should do our best to regenerate the
RREP. Let's not allow "The router MAY choose not to regenerate the
RREP"….
Yup, the draft currently says:
The RREP SHOULD NOT be regenerated if CONTROL_TRAFFIC_LIMIT
has been reached. Otherwise, the router MUST regenerate the RREP.
This isn't really right, unless I have misunderstood.
As it is, we have a queue of things to do like RREP, RERR, RREQ, RREP_ack.
That queue should be ordered priority.
Then if another command is to be issued, the new command would be
inserted in the queue in priority order.
The command in the queue are issued at a rate of
1/CONTROL_TRAFFIC_LIMIT. So the CONTROL_TRAFFIC_LIMIT will never be
exceeded.
Isn't this what we discussed?
Regards,
Charlie P.
Other related posts:
