[aodvv2-discuss] Re: RFC 6621 considerations

  • From: Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 09:22:24 -0700

Hello Vicky,

On 10/6/2015 5:26 AM, Victoria Mercieca wrote:

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?

Yes, that is right.

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.

We want AODVv2 to use RFC 6621 to decide whether or not to transmit messages to the multicast group. It does not matter what the message is.

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.

RFC 6621 would determine whether a node sends *any* message to the multicast group.

Regards,
Charlie P.




Regards,
Vicky.

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 1:45 AM, Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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.







Other related posts: