Hello folks,
As requested... ... with the proviso that I don't think it's necessary,
but the text can be included if desired.
After the following text:
o A maximum value, denoted MAX_METRIC[MetricType]. This MUST always
be the maximum expressible metric value of type MetricType. Field
lengths associated with metric values are found in Section 11.6.
If the cost of a route exceeds MAX_METRIC[MetricType], the route
is ignored.
Charlie,
Everything you've said in this email is fair. I don't have a problem with any of the points you raise. I also don't see a resolution for the issue that's in front of us - Justin has a "gripe" (albeit a minor one) on size of the AODVv2 metric, and whether we should specify a MAX_METRIC. Does your email mean we, as an editing team, should go back and answer his question with "It depends"? I'll have to admit to not being comfortable with that.
Alternatively, could you please suggest some text, so that we can mark the issue closed and push to publication?
Regards,
Stan
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hello folks,
The question was raised about the number of bits needed for a
metric (and, MAX_METRIC).
This depends on the metric type. That's the way it's done
elsewhere (e.g., in IEEE layer-2 routing), because it would be
quite wasteful if required to be the same for all metrics.
Also, I am p-lanning to resubmit draft-perkins-manet-tdpb-00.
It is very short. I would really appreciate any comments you may
have. This is one of the metrics in use for the 802.15.10 layer-2
routing specification, and has had a lot of discussion. It's a
cost metric that allows choice of path with the highest bandwidth
-- useful because bandwidth is not itself a cost metric.
Regards,
Charlie P.
