Hi Charlie,
I've added this in the Message Transmission section:
To avoid congestion, each AODVv2 router's rate of message generation SHOULD
be limited. The
implementation is free to choose the algorithm for limiting messages,
including prioritizing
messages when approaching the limit, and the rate (CONTROL_TRAFFIC_LIMIT)
should be administratively
configurable. AODVv2 messages SHOULD be discarded in the following order:
RERR for invalidated
routes, RREQ, RREP, RERR for undeliverable packet, RREP_Ack.
So it hints at the points I made below without actually specifying the
behaviour. I hope that's not too lazy of me! If we get to that limit, route
maintenance is going to be affected anyway, but this enables a slightly
more graceful way to ease the situation it before it reaches the limit.
Regards,
Vicky.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Charlie Perkins <
charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello folks,
More follow-up below...
On 4/16/2015 7:02 AM, Victoria Mercieca wrote:
This email contains questions about the control message limit (Section 9
in Version 9a or Section 6.3 in Version 9b):
- If the limit is reached, should any AODVv2 messages we would have
sent get buffered? Draft currently says they would be discarded. RREP,
RREP_Ack, and RERR for an undeliverable packet seem too important to just
drop.
Dropping is simplest. I'd be O.K. if you wanted to make more text to
refine this however.
- If we can't send a RREQ due to this limit being reached, would we
send a destination unreachable ICMP message to the router client requesting
the route?
No, that would be in dangerous territory. We should treat it the same
as a congestive failure.
- My view of order of importance: RREP_Ack (to avoid being
blacklisted), RERR for undeliverable packet (to stop other routers
forwarding data to us), RREP, RREQ, RERR for newly invalid routes.
I am O.K. with this.
- How does the limit work? Wouldn't we need to check if we are getting
close to it, and then start discarding messages in order of least
importance as we get closer to the limit?
I am O.K. with this also. It's a good idea, but no one ever asked for it
:-)
Regards,
Charlie P.
