On 18 Apr 2016, at 10:30, Victoria Mercieca <vmercieca0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No objection here, and perhaps you might also mention those metric types in
the discussion I started, giving the length of the value field that is
appropriate for each, as I don't know what to say next! :)
Kind regards,
Vicky.
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Charlie Perkins
<charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hello folks,
After extensive discussion with various people, I think there does not exist
today a suitable IETF registry for protocol-independent link metrics.
In our case, the cure is simple. RFC 6551 was only cited in section 11.6.
That section can be easily modified to lose the citation. The result is:
11.6. MetricType Allocation
The metric types used by AODVv2 are identified according to a new
table to be created and maintained by IANA. All implementations MUST
use these values.
+---------------------+----------+--------------------+
| Name of MetricType | Type | Metric Value Size |
+---------------------+----------+--------------------+
| Unassigned | 0 | Undefined |
| Hop Count | 1 | 1 octet |
| Unallocated | 2 - 254 | TBD |
| Reserved | 255 | Undefined |
+---------------------+----------+--------------------+
Table 7: AODVv2 Metric Types
If there is no objection, I would like to propose this to the list tomorrow.
It's almost guaranteed to be the solution with the least perturbation to the
existing text.
I also have drafts for the following additive cost link metrics:
- Transmission duration per bit
- ETX / ERX (expected retransmission count)
- Received Signal Weakness (allows selection of route with highest signal
strength)
The last two conform to IEEE 802.15.10 definitions which have been discussed
pretty thoroughly.
I don't propose to make AODVv2 in any way dependent on these metric
documents, but they should be considered for use with AODVv2. On the other
hand, if you folks want them to supplement hop count, I am totally at your
service. I've also looked at RFC 7185. I think those metrics can easily be
specified to be protocol-neutral.
Longer term, I think there is a good chance that the above table would be
subsumed in a protocol-independent registry, but we can't wait on that. I
have a lot more information about this if you are interested. I am not the
only interested in creating such a registry. Don't be surprised if there's a
BoF.
Regards,
Charlie P.
