Hi Charlie,
Am 20.04.2016 um 04:40 schrieb Charlie Perkins
<charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
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.