Hi all,
Am 12.03.2016 um 00:48 schrieb Charlie Perkins
<charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Hello folks,
One more bit of follow-up:
On 3/11/2016 4:35 AM, Lotte Steenbrink wrote:
Hi Charlie, hi all,
Am 10.03.2016 um 00:09 schrieb Charlie Perkins
<charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>:
Hello folks,
A little follow-up below.
If packets are not queued, no notification should be
sent to the source. (What notification is sent to the source when
packets are queued? JWD)
ICMP Destination Unreachable ICMP message is mentioned later.
Is that really the correct message for "Hold on a minute, we're working on
getting a route for you but it's not ready yet"? I think that sentence
should just be deleted. I'm reading it as "the sender shouldn't be
notified that we're not buffering". Imo, if someone wants to tell their
clients that they're not buffering, they should be able to do so, but
specifying the nitty gritty of that is out of scope.
Yes, right. In my opinion it's a mistake to not buffer TCP packets. I
don't want to get into that right now.
That’s not the point of the discussion? If I understand Justin correctly, he
doesn’t argue pro/con buffering, he just says that the text isn’t clear? And
my point is– Destination Unreachable sounds like the wrong kind of message
when we in fact don’t know whether the destination is reachable or not (and
we’re buffering until we do).
Yes, you are right -- it is very important to avoid sending Destination
Unreachable unless the route discovery process fails.
I guess there should not be an error message from AODVv2 if buffering is not
available. However for TCP it is some kind of error. Maybe there needs to
be a very short "TCP over AODVv2" document that specifies that buffering
SHOULD be available if the AODVv2 device is intended to support TCP.
Regards,
Charlie P.
