[aodvv2-discuss] Re: Timed routes
- From: Lotte Steenbrink <lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 12:16:53 +0100
Hi Charlie,
Am 20.12.2014 um 00:49 schrieb Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> 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.
>
I've re-read the RFC and couldn't find a description for this feature, could
you point me towards the part of RFC5444 that describes this when you have the
time?
> 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".
Ah! That was the piece of information I was looking for. So they go straight to
Expired, right? I'd propose to explain this in the draft, and will come up with
a suggestion on how to do so, if that's okay.
Cheers and happy holidays,
Lotte
>
> 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:
