Subject: [manet] #24 (aodvv2): Ordering of processing instructions

From: "manet issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 21:09:58 -0000

#24: Ordering of processing instructions

 if I was to implement the processing of an incoming RREQ message, which
 section should I implement? 7.5 would seem to be the place to start, and
 it gives and ordered list of things to do. Except it says...

 {{{
                 In this section (unless qualified by additional
 description
         such as "upstream" or "neighboring") all occurrences of the term
         "router" refer to the AODVv2 router handling the received !RteMsg.
 }}}

         ... what <do> "upstream" and "neighboring" mean. ...
         "upstream" is not defined. One interpretation would be that it
 would
         be "the next hop towards a gateway to..." something. But to what?
         Another interpretation would be "the next hop towards the source
         of the !RteMsg", but as this is part of the route discovery
 process,
         I probably do not know what that would be. Or, is it "the best
         next-hop towards the source of the !RteMsg that I know so far?" Or
 ...

 Section 5.2 says:

 {{{
         To avoid repeated failure of Route Discovery, an AODVv2 router
         (!HandlingRtr) handling a RREP message SHOULD attempt to verify
         connectivity to the next upstream router towards AODVv2 router
         originating an RREQ message.
 }}}

         So for the case when an !RteMsg is an RREP, then I could make a
         guess that "upstream" means "next hop towards the source of the
         corresponding RREQ message". Except Section 7.5 probably also
         applies to RREQs. So off chasing if there is a rule covering that,
         also, and guessing what that rule might mean too.  I've only just
         started to determine if I am to be processing a given !RteMsg, and
 I am
         already at a loss for how to proceed, and have had to guess
 (hoping,
         of course, to both guess RIGHT and guess as other implementers,
 with
         whom I would hope to be interoperable, would guess).

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |      Owner:  draft-ietf-manet-
  [email-masked]  |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect       |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major        |  Milestone:
Component:  aodvv2       |    Version:
 Severity:  Active WG    |   Keywords:
  Document               |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/manet/trac/ticket/24>
manet <http://tools.ietf.org/manet/>

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 19:43:44 +0100

On Thursday, April 3, 2014, manet issue tracker wrote:

>  section should I implement?

 Usually the way I do it is to implement all sections that include the
handling of RREQ.

AB