Hi all,
Am 22.03.2016 um 20:55 schrieb Victoria Mercieca <vmercieca0@xxxxxxxxx>:I’ve merged it like so:
Sounds like a good way to incorporate it :-)
Vicky
On 22 Mar 2016 17:46, "Lotte Steenbrink" <lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi Vicky,
Am 20.03.2016 um 13:04 schrieb Victoria Mercieca <vmercieca0@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:vmercieca0@xxxxxxxxx>>:
Hi Lotte,
I guess when the messages become stale, they could be deleted from the
queue...as there would be no point sending them. We would have to note at
what time they were put in the queue, and use the corresponding timeouts -
for a queued RREQ, there's no point sending it if the time for an expected
RREP has been reached, because AODVv2 itself would create a new RREQ and add
it to the queue.
for a queued RREP, there's no point sending it if the time for an expected
RREP has been reached, because receivers of this delayed RREP would ignore
it. (Although, since RREP_Gen doesnt know when the RREQ was generated, it
might still send this with a delay that means RREQ_Gen would ignore it)
for a queued RREP_Ack there's no point sending if the time for an expected
RREP_Ack has been reached, as RREP_Gen would ignore it (again, we dont know
exactly when that timer expires on RREP_Gen so we might allow this RREP_Ack
to be sent with enough delay that it would get ignored)
for a queued RERR, the only time it would be pointless to send is if the
reported route was re-established before the RERR was sent. In that case the
new route should have a greater seqnum and this route from the RERR would be
ignored by a receiver. For further optimisation, its possible that when a
route is installed you could go through any queued RERRs to see if they
still need sending.
I like that list. If it’s okay I’d merge it with the priority list though, so
that it says „message type x should be of priority y, but there’s no point
sending it if it’s older than z“?
Is that all really implementation detail though,
It is, but I think it’s helpful advice, isn’t it?
would it cause interoperability issues? Is it enough to say "you should
limit the rate of message generation, aiming for a maximum of
CONTROL_TRAFFIC_LIMIT, and (to help you out) here are the
priorities...whether you want to discard messages or queue them in priority
order, whether you only take action when the limit is reached, or when its
close to being reached, that's up to you."..? I suppose if some routers
decided to discard messages rather than queue them, it would affect protocol
operation, but so would the huge amount of messages being flooded across the
network which caused it to reach the limit anyway.
mhm… true...
When the control message limit is reached, we want to give the network a
chance to recover, so if some messages were dropped and only the important
ones (e.g. RREPs and RREP_Acks) sent, then we are relying on RREQ retries at
a later point to deal with the fact we discarded some RREQs in that period.
I think thats why RREQ ended up lower down in the priorities, because we
know there are retries.
yup. (and because there’s no point in establishing new routes in an already
overloaded network/ through an overwhelmed router?)
Regards,
Lotte
Kind regards,
Vicky.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:11 PM, Lotte Steenbrink
<lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi all,
Am 10.03.2016 um 15:48 schrieb John Dowdell <john.dowdell486@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:john.dowdell486@xxxxxxxxx>>:
<snip>
+1
(It’s not clear to me how this priority works. Do the messages just
get dropped when tsome threshold for max number of messages is reached?
Is there some queuing method because if their isn’t I don’t see
how priority would work at all, as the choices are drop or send. This
whole section seems out of place as we have’t talked about generating
messages. I’d suggest moving or removing JWD)
This is a good point. In order to be clear, we need to say that there
is a queue of messages and then use the priority mechanism to discard
low-priority queued messages. Or, perhaps better, we can say that
messages are not sent more frequently than one message per (1 /
CONTROL_TRAFFIC_LIMIT)th of a second, and then the queue is reordered
based on priority.
Any objections? If not I'll craft some text that says that.
Thanks. I think it represents a nice improvement.
Quick followup to that one:
I changed the text to:
To avoid congestion, each AODVv2 router's rate of message generation SHOULD
be limited (CONTROL_TRAFFIC_LIMIT) and administratively
configurable. Messages SHOULD NOT be sent more frequently than one message
per (1 / CONTROL_TRAFFIC_LIMIT)th of a second. If this threshold is reached,
messages MUST be sent based on their priority:
* Highest priority SHOULD be given to RREP_Ack messages. This allows links
between routers to be confirmed as bidirectional and
avoids undesired blacklisting of next hop routers.
* Second priority SHOULD be given to RERR messages for undeliverable IP
packets. This avoids repeated forwarding of packets over broken routes that
are still in use by other routers.
* Third priority SHOULD be given to RREP messages in order that RREQs do not
time out.
* Fourth priority should be given to RREQ messages.
* Fifth priority should be given to RERR messages for newly invalidated
routes.
* Lowest priority SHOULD be given to RERR messages generated in response to
RREP messages which cannot be regenerated. In this case the route request
will be retried at a later point.
, but I don’t think I got the beginning quite right. What I’m stumbling over
is the „reordering based on priority“ thing:
if we’re doing something like:
while CONTROL_TRAFFIC_LIMIT reached:
reorder(queue)
send(queue.getHighestPrio())
we might *only* send RREP_Acks and RREPs, while other message types are
never sent. This might als mean that (then stale) RREP_Acks are sent, while
fresh RREQs are discarded?
Additionally, note that I’ve reworded the bullet points to improve clarity
and conciseness. I hope I preserved their meaning! (any comments very
welcome)
Also, while I understand Justin’s point that it is confusing to talk about
message sending before message generation, but it follows the general
structure of the document and I don’t really see where else this paragraph
belongs.
Cheers,
Lotte
