[aodvv2-discuss] Re: Timed routes
- From: Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 15:49:37 -0800
Hello Lotte,
Timed routes were introduced to be compatible with RFC 5444.
RFC 5444 specifies the use of a "Validity Time", and timed routes
are AODVv2's way of providing that feature.
Yes, all routes are timed in a way, but (according to my recent
proposal anyway), "timed routes" are slightly different because
they don't go "idle".
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 12/19/2014 3:40 PM, Lotte Steenbrink wrote:
Hi all,
at the hangout today we talked about Timed routes, and I said I vaguely
remember thinking that they were underspecified. I looked it up again in my
noted and the draft and, at the risk of sounding incredibly stupid:
I still don't really get what timed routes are for. Aren't all routes Timed, in
a way? (as in: they expire after they have not ben used for ACTIVE_INTERVAL +
MAX_IDLETIME ). Are timed routes routes whose expiration time is not refreshed
when they are being used?
The draft doesn't mention when a route can or must be marked as timed. I think
that was the source of my confusion.
I'd love to learn more about this, and would be happy to help newbie-proof the
specification text once I understood what Timed routes are all about.
Cheers,
Lotte
Other related posts:
