Subject: [manet] DYMO draft-14 - ROUTE_AGE_MAX

From: Peter Kuhar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:16:42 +0200

Hi,

I'm implementing DYMO from draft 14 on a 6loWPAN (rfc4944) stack.

Regarding chapter "5.2.3.2. Maximum Delete Timeout (ROUTE_AGE_MAX)"
I don't believe that a route should be deleted just because it's old. 
If a route is actively used, than it's new enough.

I suggest an extra timer that would time out just SEQNUM validity.
Something like ROUTE_SEQNUM_AGE_MAX that is set when SEQNUM in a route
is updated.  After the timer elapses SEQNUM checking for that route
should not be done any more until new SEQNUM is set.

ROUTE_AGE_MAX could still be used but with much longer timeout.

Cheers,
Peter
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---

From: "Smit, J.F. (Jens) de" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:39:13 +0200

Hi Peter,

Why shouldn't an old route be deleted even if it is actively used? It
could well be that the route has become suboptimal because of node
mobility, warranting a new route discovery.

Regards,

Jens

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Peter Kuhar
Sent: woensdag 17 september 2008 13:17
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [manet] DYMO draft-14 - ROUTE_AGE_MAX

Hi,

Cheers,
Peter
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at http://www.tno.nl/disclaimer/email.html

---

From: Peter Kuhar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:13:14 +0200

> mobility, warranting a new route discovery.
I agree. But this should be up to the originating router to decide when
it's time to discover a new route. A forwarding route should not be
deleted if it's being used. At least in my view.

Regards,
Peter

---

From: "Ian Chakeres" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:22:17 +0530

Peter I agree with you.

MAX_AGE must be used to stop the sequence number information from
being considered or propagated (otherwise routing loops could
potentially form if a node looses its sequence number), but I agree it
may not be necessarily to remove the corresponding active forwarding
entry.

I will think about how to rectify this effect while doing the next
DYMO revision. I may ping you to see if you agree with any proposed
changes.

Thanks.
Ian Chakeres