Hi...
I think the last call we had, we stated that 6621 would run alongside
AODVv2... As far as I understand it (and I dont profess to understand much
about 6621) 6621 determines whether a node needs to re-send a multicast
message. i.e. if it doesnt re-send it, will everyone still hear it? Also,
the message itself would be sent unchanged, but this is not what we want in
AODVv2 is it? We want AODVv2 to get the message and decide whether to
regenerate it. So would 6621 give AODVv2 an indication of whether it
thought it would re-send a received message, then let AODVv2 update and
send the regenerated version? I dont understand how the two would work
together.
Regards,
Vicky.
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 1:45 AM, Charlie Perkins <
charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello folks,
We had a discussion thread about the use of techniques in RFC 6621. I
mentioned at the time that I was not aware of any downside in the
circumstance that some AODVv2 routers would implement RFC 6621 and others
would not.
That isn't a very precise statement because there is more than one
algorithm discussed in RFC 6621; moreover, there is more than one kind of
"downside". Nevertheless, to the best of my knowledge my claim remains
true "in spirit". Here is some example text taken from Appendix A of RFC
6621, which is naturally much more precise than my earlier claim.
The "Essential Connected Dominating Set" (E-CDS) algorithm [RFC5614]
forms a single CDS mesh for the SMF operating region. It allows
routers to use 2-hop neighborhood topology information to dynamically
perform relay self-election to form a CDS. Its packet-forwarding
rules are not dependent upon previous hop knowledge. Additionally,
E-CDS SMF forwarders can be easily mixed without problems with CF SMF
forwarders, even those not participating in NHDP. Another benefit is
that packets opportunistically received from non-symmetric neighbors
may be forwarded without compromising flooding efficiency or
correctness. Furthermore, multicast sources not participating in
NHDP may freely inject their traffic, and any neighboring E-CDS
relays will properly forward the traffic.
If we specialize our suggestion to say E-CDS instead of RFC 6621, it might
curtail some uncertainty. And I like E-CDS the best. Nevertheless, I
believe the same considerations hold for MPR selection algorithms.
Regards,
Charlie P.
