Am 05.04.2016 um 00:04 schrieb Victoria Mercieca <vmercieca0@xxxxxxxxx>:Careful, I may be german, but at some point you’re going to kill me still! :D
In line...
On 4 Apr 2016 18:43, "Stan Ratliff" <ratliffstan@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ratliffstan@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Charlie,
Ok, that makes sense.
On another note, I'm sitting here chuckling at the thought of you, Vicky,
and me emailing each other almost real-time from the same hotel. :-) Such
is life @ IETF...
Yeah, poor Lotte trying to catch up on all these...maybe we owe 1 beer per
email haha!!
Ignore my earlier email about this forcing a limit on total number of hops
allowable in a route. I am wrong.
Having a max link cost means we would avoid really poor links...potentially
not establishing a route where one did exist. Unsure if we should do that...
Kind regards,
Vicky.
Stan
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 4, 2016, at 6:38 PM, Charlie Perkins
<charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
wrote:
Hello Stan,
To be more precise...
On 4/4/2016 2:19 PM, Ratliff, Stanley wrote:
(consider adding a maximum single hop value JWD TODO)
This would be a bad idea
Why?
Mainly because various metrics do need the full range of values in order
to properly evaluate the cost.
However, if you really want to do this, then you could define a new
constant MAX_SINGLE_HOP_METRIC with the constraint that
MAX_SINGLE_HOP_METRIC <= MAX_METRIC, where the '=' is definitely included
in the "<=".
No objection to that, if Lotte wants to add the text.
Regards,
Charlie P.
