[aodvv2-discuss] Re: Metrics (removing references to alternate metric types)

  • From: Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 15:33:47 -0700

Hello Lotte,

On 10/1/2015 1:00 PM, Lotte Steenbrink wrote:

Hi all,

Am 01.10.2015 um 22:10 schrieb Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

Hello folks,

I think it is premature to call a vote.
I don't, and I'm voting for option 1.

Maybe you'll reconsider after reading the material below.


As mentioned before, the result will be *inaccurate* metrics, not a major routing failure. From my mail of September 29:
You know much more about all kinds of metrics than I do, but I'm sure there are
some metrics whose values wildly contradict each other... If one party thinks a
big value is good and the other thinks a small value is good, I would suspect
that the complications arising from this would lean more on the “major failure”
than on the “quirky behaviour” side of things... If I understand it correctly,
compromise would be adopting OLSR's unified metric representation, but as I
said, I'm under the impression that's not in your favour either.

I think you misunderstood my point. I was not endorsing the unified metric, but merely pointing out that it proves the limited downside of combining cost metrics.

I would be in favor of requiring the explicit TLV for all non-cost metrics.

Or, even better, stating that AODVv2 does not support "benefit" metrics, which can always be reformulated to specify a cost metric which enables selection of least-cost (therefore most benefit) metrics.


Regards,
Charlie P.

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. aodvv2-discuss
  3. Archive
  4. 10-2015