[aodvv2-discuss] Re: [manet] AODVv2 comments
- From: Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 08:48:55 -0700
Hello Vicky,
Your text is fine with me, but I have some little follow-up below
regarding your questions...
On 10/7/2015 1:50 AM, Victoria Mercieca wrote:
...
Should we still add some reference to the Newer function Charlie
wrote? And should we add any explanation that if the incoming sequence
number is greater than the current seqnum by more than half the
maximum value, then the incoming will be seen as stale? But that we
dont care, because if that happened, something bigger is wrong...?
It is not possible to measure differences of more than half the size of
the sequence number space.
So it is "not possible" for any seqnum to be "greater than" another
seqnum by more than half the size of the sequence number space.
Picking the size of the seqnum space amounts to a predetermination of
what is possible to measure. I don't think it is appropriate to make
statements that we "don't care", because we have to care enough to pick
a workable seqnum space. In the preceding sentence, the "if" clause is
always FALSE because the conditional could never be satisfied in the
space of sequence numbers.
In fact, 8 bits would probably be O.K. for AODVv2, and that was an early
design choice. But 16 bits is "super-O.K.".
My discussion about "Newer()" was in response to a question by Chris
Dearlove, and is not related to the size of the seqnum space.
Regards,
Charlie P.
Other related posts:
