From nobody Fri Apr 20 01:01:31 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A05F212704A for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 01:01:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8odc-S_Gbm2G for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 01:01:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qt0-x22d.google.com (mail-qt0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B66F124D6C for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 01:01:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id f20-v6so8632142qtp.7 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 01:01:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=yahOBKsWi6DRXkEZ3i4xuUldER7Lv2FhVXmhltzuTV8=; b=P1HBDOj3MTzwU29Xz2RMee5DK/FS4Zr6flUmj+17gLyrJMjkMFaoxyNSPwQmiv95sg XySNYMGocJKf6xrZc4bbrGdvEOv/4KIBtoZ34kLeEPiApaIDMFMSXJD2huwGqbqpfXrY 6iLDSuR2gVWWA+zdRZEHy972zVIqCTCr6Nw6VVMSDudFrdTFhOERtEjIDaAn+JForDZQ CaUZuZRGixapsfwM9/ah3nsuZKRwmhcJ8u7NXwsgIUcX0Wg18XKcgIs1Tw1LfrtI5h4r fa5/9z24fcybNribZLGunFi2Uy2r7p2C/lLrt8txWP8HI5cq1bBAJTTMy7xRW2oe0z0p vxCg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=yahOBKsWi6DRXkEZ3i4xuUldER7Lv2FhVXmhltzuTV8=; b=ZAmlg5zHtWY1zvFL8trBl0GeLu1nWPR68hOa+QQ5UZEfjVWELSuiwHlrxwcZxBGygD lnk1zL8vKdxhhUjgys/mIscnfPI5V92Fvcd/jOaItjG4E8aAS1r3uRD+uNpytBuKJhQV a4X+2xW/qSe7eagrbFCVrymDHmJxonPavcCYIEH5jWXWEq+B9NMQ2q3/oKG6ZmNrcrqc 4D/t36LDvjemATIkmLoy8oYl7QWnSbXWMqf3SILq7BNCYyqFxwNQEvFo/K7qwGJvgTw7 hmOIhGMdZECTelZzon4DVbCcsgYgTM93ba5UKCwzk4YJklvNhUL5uVg/Ts/fJRnGbByk pZCw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tBXuwaBELZ218m6RqP37vpiau/EleFsFdU2H3yn+ePJmTky55KY 0a1BI3Rqr4zwAkKukFriviKoTm1zFiVenZXWvYoCvA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4/BKP5UfTnsBitvsjfZhpD6KX3MufrKy41Mya0Egg3wIZNCbbVp983DZpSQ+muApPxgwc7kScBoZiVLS8lV7Ro= X-Received: by 2002:aed:2864:: with SMTP id r91-v6mr9822051qtd.233.1524211287757; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 01:01:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.237.38.133 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 01:00:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Henning Rogge Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 10:00:57 +0200 Message-ID: To: MANET IETF Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: [manet] (DLEP) Relative Link Quality and routing metrics X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 08:01:31 -0000 Hello, I am currently looking for a good way to integrate the RLQ value of DLEP into a cost based routing metric, e.g. DAT. But I am not sure how to do this... has anyone here good experience using RLQ and maybe an advise how "hard" you should penalize a link with a RLQ less than 100? Henning Rogge From nobody Fri Apr 20 04:02:32 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBFDA1270AE for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 04:02:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7IYY0ILI4FCI for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 04:02:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.tropicalstormsoftware.com (mail.tropicalstormsoftware.com [188.94.42.120]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D19731250B8 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 04:02:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com ([fe80::753b:fa82:5c0:af0d]) by tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com ([fe80::753b:fa82:5c0:af0d%10]) with mapi; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:02:24 +0100 From: Rick Taylor To: "hrogge@gmail.com" , "manet@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [manet] (DLEP) Relative Link Quality and routing metrics Thread-Index: AQHT2H3P2AD+KQM9E02EQt7YBt8CaqQJbFsA Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 11:02:20 +0000 Message-ID: <1524222140.1526.7.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <0baf71cd-3bda-402f-bf2c-870702f2578b> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [manet] (DLEP) Relative Link Quality and routing metrics X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 11:02:31 -0000 SSBoYXZlIGFsd2F5cyBzdWdnZXN0ZWQgdGhhdCBSTFEgc2hvdWxkIGJlIGEgbWVhc3VyZSBvZiBo b3cgaGFyZCB0aGUNCm1vZGVtIGlzIHdvcmtpbmcgdG8gbWFpbnRhaW4gdGhlIGxpbmssIGkuZS4g dGhlIGhpZ2hlciB0aGUgUkxRLCB0aGUNCm1vcmUgc3RhYmxlIHRoZSBsaW5rIGlzLCBhbmQgYSBs b3cgUkxRIGluZGljYXRlcyB0aGF0IHRoZSBsaW5rIG1heSB3ZWxsDQpyYWRpY2FsbHkgY2hhbmdl IG1ldHJpY3MsIG9yIGRpc3NhcGVhciBzb29uLg0KDQpPbmUgY2FuIGltYWdpbmUgYSBzb3BoaXN0 aWNhdGVkIG1vZGVtIG1haW50aWFpbmluZyBhIGxpbmsgaW4gdmVyeQ0KYWR2ZXJzZSBjb25kaXRp b25zLCByZXBvcnRpbmcgYSBsb3cgUkxRLCBidXQgb3RoZXJ3aXNlIGdvb2QgbWV0cmljcy4NCg0K V2hldGhlciBSTFEgaXMgYSBnb29kIG1ldHJpYyB0byB1c2UgYXMgYSByb3V0ZSBjb3N0IGlzIGEg bW9yZSBkaWZmaWN1bHQNCnF1ZXN0aW9uLiAgSSd2ZSBhbHdheXMgYmVlbiBvZiB0aGUgb3Bpbmlv biB0aGF0IFJMUSBhbmQgUmVzb3VyY2VzIG1ha2UNCmEgZ29vZCB0aWUtYnJlYWtlcnMsIGJ1dCBD RFIgYW5kIExhdGVuY3kgbWFrZSBiZXR0ZXIgJ3ByaW1hcnknIG1ldHJpY3MuDQoNCkhvcGUgdGhh dCBoZWxwcyBhIGxpdHRsZT8NCg0KUmljaw0KDQpPbiBGcmksIDIwMTgtMDQtMjAgYXQgMTA6MDAg KzAyMDAsIEhlbm5pbmcgUm9nZ2Ugd3JvdGU6DQo+IEhlbGxvLA0KPiANCj4gSSBhbSBjdXJyZW50 bHkgbG9va2luZyBmb3IgYSBnb29kIHdheSB0byBpbnRlZ3JhdGUgdGhlIFJMUSB2YWx1ZSBvZg0K PiBETEVQIGludG8gYSBjb3N0IGJhc2VkIHJvdXRpbmcgbWV0cmljLCBlLmcuIERBVC4gQnV0IEkg YW0gbm90IHN1cmUNCj4gaG93DQo+IHRvIGRvIHRoaXMuLi4NCj4gDQo+IGhhcyBhbnlvbmUgaGVy ZSBnb29kIGV4cGVyaWVuY2UgdXNpbmcgUkxRIGFuZCBtYXliZSBhbiBhZHZpc2UgaG93DQo+ICJo YXJkIiB5b3Ugc2hvdWxkIHBlbmFsaXplIGEgbGluayB3aXRoIGEgUkxRIGxlc3MgdGhhbiAxMDA/ DQo+IA0KPiBIZW5uaW5nIFJvZ2dlDQo+IA0KPiBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KPiBtYW5ldCBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCj4gbWFuZXRAaWV0Zi5v cmcNCj4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9tYW5ldA== From nobody Fri Apr 20 04:05:44 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A26A129C51 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 04:05:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rO7HwEBGVMyZ for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 04:05:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qt0-x229.google.com (mail-qt0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6766B1270AE for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 04:05:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt0-x229.google.com with SMTP id s2-v6so9058768qti.2 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 04:05:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1JNfvSlg57BRB+jGFO+MgY6VaHxstVAvhqu/j+BCGJQ=; b=eFqFGBeJFRnHWxzrlWXF0aDkTCoK2YjfFMDC4fq7TQ0d7Au3PKBZAr3bTyV7y0jo5U 0nApf5sc8zryvnaFtMGKJq4El6uxHY1Pwuf6SnssKhvA98N6J2WwkwALPVhidqCD1mC5 hfVVsvcETAfm43eoyy9TfPrbI4RaKF61En1zZyMvJPaVN8MT1nQow51P4tY/VT/LHfeE mmpwu9BmrEkLUaPFZ3UZ803P/MM4g+VbMWt+lVvI4sB0HDaw5bjr0HkSBcjdwn54TErE aDyo3RshRHezFLqdvI1g1fJlH+6MvQxyTjIjxgpDNI0DsOf4UgPP3eq5WSzuqp5Z6VMu 3hRg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1JNfvSlg57BRB+jGFO+MgY6VaHxstVAvhqu/j+BCGJQ=; b=suAM6iKE49e0O0/QEkUSwyqvjMirJRJA8i/hab5R+bMtGEasdmqCJr4TOH+ideAq8h 5Hs0Ko4MzQu+BXbbXPWIbxgganJfCqMXHSdYtu53EAdOKoh/OKAvYwupg6iViHiPt47x C+GlWhaNPDbgS17MHW2QQtyFQpl3AHTsu81MezUPGRArEEjApijrOg6SQfDmFzCgikCd LkPa4clqObdXIykUWRqKbl3IvqxK4yPMpk2kKJLHroSqZ3XWyU5ZPss8uXyV5PL2D/HS nHjkb+c+SnTswMWnwiKxjpYM9gxZl4sRrUDcNZP3uflx3fbbXVGldwWYPYYWYx5fxvDn ozvw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tAgLl0GtajMi8dmpxSpMU6PPkmsOslZ/C5gPg3+/iVw3GEb1Zc9 K4R0K21wgl5xQ/zSntAAR60h2WmJ5ugFdl7EXUwAgg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4+WJIrdx1MJ7Pjaf/IlUluN7yWOF/aVwbJ00KsoB5ud3G4/PncsgdWKL5jQ1tCPxlzCGIWCRkBhkdCT2AKyPlQ= X-Received: by 2002:aed:3169:: with SMTP id 96-v6mr10807406qtg.43.1524222340363; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 04:05:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.237.38.133 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 04:05:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1524222140.1526.7.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com> References: <1524222140.1526.7.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com> From: Henning Rogge Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 13:05:09 +0200 Message-ID: To: Rick Taylor Cc: "manet@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [manet] (DLEP) Relative Link Quality and routing metrics X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 11:05:43 -0000 Sorry, but this does not help... lets say I estimate the link cost for a link (based on data-rate) to be 1000... if the radio reports RLQ=100, I would keep the 1000... but how do I modify it for a RLQ of 80... or 50... or 1? If I cannot integrate the value into the cost metric, I have no use for the value. Unfortunately it is often the ONLY value the radio reports. Henning On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Rick Taylor wrote: > I have always suggested that RLQ should be a measure of how hard the > modem is working to maintain the link, i.e. the higher the RLQ, the > more stable the link is, and a low RLQ indicates that the link may well > radically change metrics, or dissapear soon. > > One can imagine a sophisticated modem maintiaining a link in very > adverse conditions, reporting a low RLQ, but otherwise good metrics. > > Whether RLQ is a good metric to use as a route cost is a more difficult > question. I've always been of the opinion that RLQ and Resources make > a good tie-breakers, but CDR and Latency make better 'primary' metrics. > > Hope that helps a little? > > Rick > > On Fri, 2018-04-20 at 10:00 +0200, Henning Rogge wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I am currently looking for a good way to integrate the RLQ value of >> DLEP into a cost based routing metric, e.g. DAT. But I am not sure >> how >> to do this... >> >> has anyone here good experience using RLQ and maybe an advise how >> "hard" you should penalize a link with a RLQ less than 100? >> >> Henning Rogge >> >> _______________________________________________ >> manet mailing list >> manet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From nobody Fri Apr 20 05:02:21 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 009E112E87F for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 05:02:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=inf-net-nl.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T3pQ4hwjPMMD for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 05:02:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wr0-x22e.google.com (mail-wr0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF56312D890 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 05:02:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id u11-v6so22303966wri.12 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 05:02:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=inf-net-nl.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=bXLcwv7xOm8DohGjX8Z2X5dKnPSS6jNBTY/Qy1EJhEQ=; b=OmKUnvd3ZDtlMAgtCDyCwkYNiveC5xO7R6+HPT38Qd/eLFFMRQSHbCtteda4trcA39 mzZnPgZUxA0/R1YS/Q78mkcbXh5YEC9xGnBtQCqiKGwKmfwXG99wlzObRAbE/nY8W8G/ cOv8W0jvOzkRUKe1DmC7cRgCFJRMyZ7lhrq1n18Xca2wixyssCbweDA/Ddg9Lzp/MBJl lD0kTyhpAof9CehSIEUlKsPcZ/KfPLi8a7FBl/p0toaTyCQ1tIOfyTza84Pxwgm0b+kG WG/UMdrzDa5ooVf0tfaIFjjBogOY2SR4n2TPKCC8DeptTCSAGzQ26oCvjBT1gFYEOHBr V35A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=bXLcwv7xOm8DohGjX8Z2X5dKnPSS6jNBTY/Qy1EJhEQ=; b=L9xdE806ngb8hIurHnbA05yXM1QYxq6EnNlN83wdKZHoEq7vcJkrBrhNu7UG25t86U Pdwv71XICHW4MR0Hfkq7Q1sPo1iNfI65El6MCMYd/gHNHRmGm7otMsIYTebDNrJwA9YL 7AkZRtEjMyDsItIRrnZZFJEn9PkhFpJk+VEEGjuUbLykwiuZFDOYIDOeowu5fVXhi//Q l/opR1x/WYxhhAAcoh1d2K+Ygdkm0862YQLFQFPb47vKTWwiDnc6ui1so1njAitjN7TG 8MyUuHZKsTLvEYSEPoQvnbNbx3RqpPKLABkHk/el7TIDdLw8ZJI3E9j8qcpzYOlHggzg 4/sw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tAEYWStkwR6lOJSl1Q9IDAmcIDKO2kpDdWpn+nNR5+XXoeN887h 8d9L/UdD5X2QXKvx3UmgN2YSzA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx48a4Xnxp4CV4C4DX6j+LkE1eY/tl5Gd74+vFDZ1lElqW00WoA4AlWDxmitXMGWLaLbE4N2ogg== X-Received: by 10.80.182.44 with SMTP id b41mr7848192ede.255.1524225729027; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 05:02:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipv6.dynamic.ziggo.nl ([2001:1c01:3106:6c00:14a4:7c50:4590:ad22]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p36sm4368101eda.43.2018.04.20.05.02.07 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 20 Apr 2018 05:02:07 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\)) From: Teco Boot In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 14:02:06 +0200 Cc: Rick Taylor , "manet@ietf.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <1524222140.1526.7.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com> To: Henning Rogge X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [manet] (DLEP) Relative Link Quality and routing metrics X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:02:18 -0000 Assume two types of radio's. First one is 802.11 type of radio. It has rate adaption and retry = statistics. It reports CDR, this is the *good-put* the radio would have = taking all the airtime. In this case, utility of RLQ is low. But when the radio reports only the average or most recent *TX rate*, = the RLQ can be of value. At higher rates, RLQ would be 100, because rate = adaption takes care of variation in link budget. But at lower rates and = high retry ration (and backoff timers... RLQ would provide kind of fast = DAT, when RLQ is based on RSSI and/or retry counters. Second one is more like a legacy data-radio. It has fixed rate, fixed TX = power and it is often used for broadcast, i.e. the messages are = addressed to all receivers. For the sender, RLQ is always 100, it = doesn't mater if there is any receiver. In military, it is called fire = and forget. But for receivers, there is a variation in metrics. Nearby = nodes would receive all packets, nodes far from the sender would receive = nothing. Somewhere between, nodes would receive part of the messages = sent by a node. This is called the grey zone. Reported metrics could be = loss ratio, RSSI, Eb/No or RLQ. Here, RLQ could be a compound value, = based on the mentioned metrics. Because RLQ would be very specific to the type of radio, you could = design some kind of plugin or profile mechanism, where an administrator = could select a calculation model. I did some work using RSSI to RLQ mapping, the router used that to = calculate the routing protocol metric. I used a lookup table. Tuning the = table is tough, different conditions need different mapping. Teco > Op 20 apr. 2018, om 13:05 heeft Henning Rogge het = volgende geschreven: >=20 > Sorry, >=20 > but this does not help... >=20 > lets say I estimate the link cost for a link (based on data-rate) to = be 1000... >=20 > if the radio reports RLQ=3D100, I would keep the 1000... but how do I > modify it for a RLQ of 80... or 50... or 1? >=20 > If I cannot integrate the value into the cost metric, I have no use > for the value. Unfortunately it is often the ONLY value the radio > reports. >=20 > Henning >=20 > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Rick Taylor > wrote: >> I have always suggested that RLQ should be a measure of how hard the >> modem is working to maintain the link, i.e. the higher the RLQ, the >> more stable the link is, and a low RLQ indicates that the link may = well >> radically change metrics, or dissapear soon. >>=20 >> One can imagine a sophisticated modem maintiaining a link in very >> adverse conditions, reporting a low RLQ, but otherwise good metrics. >>=20 >> Whether RLQ is a good metric to use as a route cost is a more = difficult >> question. I've always been of the opinion that RLQ and Resources = make >> a good tie-breakers, but CDR and Latency make better 'primary' = metrics. >>=20 >> Hope that helps a little? >>=20 >> Rick >>=20 >> On Fri, 2018-04-20 at 10:00 +0200, Henning Rogge wrote: >>> Hello, >>>=20 >>> I am currently looking for a good way to integrate the RLQ value of >>> DLEP into a cost based routing metric, e.g. DAT. But I am not sure >>> how >>> to do this... >>>=20 >>> has anyone here good experience using RLQ and maybe an advise how >>> "hard" you should penalize a link with a RLQ less than 100? >>>=20 >>> Henning Rogge >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> manet mailing list >>> manet@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet >=20 > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet From nobody Fri Apr 20 05:55:46 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69A6412D77B for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 05:55:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZNCrEdQEAn8k for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 05:55:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.tropicalstormsoftware.com (mail.tropicalstormsoftware.com [188.94.42.120]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4CC512751F for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 05:55:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com ([fe80::753b:fa82:5c0:af0d]) by tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com ([fe80::753b:fa82:5c0:af0d%10]) with mapi; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 13:55:38 +0100 From: Rick Taylor To: "hrogge@gmail.com" CC: "manet@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [manet] (DLEP) Relative Link Quality and routing metrics Thread-Index: AQHT2H3P2AD+KQM9E02EQt7YBt8CaqQJbFsAgAAAyoCAAB7ZAA== Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:55:34 +0000 Message-ID: <1524228934.32744.2.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com> References: <1524222140.1526.7.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [manet] (DLEP) Relative Link Quality and routing metrics X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:55:44 -0000 SW5saW5lLi4uDQoNCk9uIEZyaSwgMjAxOC0wNC0yMCBhdCAxMzowNSArMDIwMCwgSGVubmluZyBS b2dnZSB3cm90ZToNCj4gU29ycnksDQo+IA0KPiBidXQgdGhpcyBkb2VzIG5vdCBoZWxwLi4uDQo+ IA0KPiBsZXRzIHNheSBJIGVzdGltYXRlIHRoZSBsaW5rIGNvc3QgZm9yIGEgbGluayAoYmFzZWQg b24gZGF0YS1yYXRlKSB0bw0KPiBiZSAxMDAwLi4uDQo+IA0KPiBpZiB0aGUgcmFkaW8gcmVwb3J0 cyBSTFE9MTAwLCBJIHdvdWxkIGtlZXAgdGhlIDEwMDAuLi4gYnV0IGhvdyBkbyBJDQo+IG1vZGlm eSBpdCBmb3IgYSBSTFEgb2YgODAuLi4gb3IgNTAuLi4gb3IgMT8NCj4gDQo+IElmIEkgY2Fubm90 IGludGVncmF0ZSB0aGUgdmFsdWUgaW50byB0aGUgY29zdCBtZXRyaWMsIEkgaGF2ZSBubyB1c2UN Cj4gZm9yIHRoZSB2YWx1ZS4gVW5mb3J0dW5hdGVseSBpdCBpcyBvZnRlbiB0aGUgT05MWSB2YWx1 ZSB0aGUgcmFkaW8NCj4gcmVwb3J0cy4NCg0KSSB3b3VsZCBzdWdnZXN0IHlvdSByZXR1cm4gdG8g dGhlIHJhZGlvIHZlbmRvciBhbmQgcmVxdWVzdCB0aGV5IHN1cHBvcnQNCm1vcmUgbWV0cmljcyB0 aGFuIFJMUSBpbiB1cGRhdGVzLg0KDQpJZiB0aGV5IGFyZSBETEVQIGNvbXBsaWFudCwgdGhlbiB0 aGV5IE1VU1Qgc3VwcG9ydCBNRFIsQ0RSLExhdGVuY3kgcGVyDQpzZXNzaW9uLCBhbmQgeW91IGNv dWxkIG1vZGlmeSB0aGUgc2Vzc2lvbi13aWRlIENEUiB2YWx1ZXMgYnkgdGhlIFJMUSBpbg0Kc29t ZSBub24tdW5pZm9ybSBtYW5uZXIuDQoNClJpY2sNCg0KPiANCj4gSGVubmluZw0KPiANCj4gT24g RnJpLCBBcHIgMjAsIDIwMTggYXQgMTowMiBQTSwgUmljayBUYXlsb3INCj4gPHJpY2tAdHJvcGlj YWxzdG9ybXNvZnR3YXJlLmNvbT4gd3JvdGU6DQo+ID4gSSBoYXZlIGFsd2F5cyBzdWdnZXN0ZWQg dGhhdCBSTFEgc2hvdWxkIGJlIGEgbWVhc3VyZSBvZiBob3cgaGFyZA0KPiA+IHRoZQ0KPiA+IG1v ZGVtIGlzIHdvcmtpbmcgdG8gbWFpbnRhaW4gdGhlIGxpbmssIGkuZS4gdGhlIGhpZ2hlciB0aGUg UkxRLCB0aGUNCj4gPiBtb3JlIHN0YWJsZSB0aGUgbGluayBpcywgYW5kIGEgbG93IFJMUSBpbmRp Y2F0ZXMgdGhhdCB0aGUgbGluayBtYXkNCj4gPiB3ZWxsDQo+ID4gcmFkaWNhbGx5IGNoYW5nZSBt ZXRyaWNzLCBvciBkaXNzYXBlYXIgc29vbi4NCj4gPiANCj4gPiBPbmUgY2FuIGltYWdpbmUgYSBz b3BoaXN0aWNhdGVkIG1vZGVtIG1haW50aWFpbmluZyBhIGxpbmsgaW4gdmVyeQ0KPiA+IGFkdmVy c2UgY29uZGl0aW9ucywgcmVwb3J0aW5nIGEgbG93IFJMUSwgYnV0IG90aGVyd2lzZSBnb29kDQo+ ID4gbWV0cmljcy4NCj4gPiANCj4gPiBXaGV0aGVyIFJMUSBpcyBhIGdvb2QgbWV0cmljIHRvIHVz ZSBhcyBhIHJvdXRlIGNvc3QgaXMgYSBtb3JlDQo+ID4gZGlmZmljdWx0DQo+ID4gcXVlc3Rpb24u ICBJJ3ZlIGFsd2F5cyBiZWVuIG9mIHRoZSBvcGluaW9uIHRoYXQgUkxRIGFuZCBSZXNvdXJjZXMN Cj4gPiBtYWtlDQo+ID4gYSBnb29kIHRpZS1icmVha2VycywgYnV0IENEUiBhbmQgTGF0ZW5jeSBt YWtlIGJldHRlciAncHJpbWFyeScNCj4gPiBtZXRyaWNzLg0KPiA+IA0KPiA+IEhvcGUgdGhhdCBo ZWxwcyBhIGxpdHRsZT8NCj4gPiANCj4gPiBSaWNrDQo+ID4gDQo+ID4gT24gRnJpLCAyMDE4LTA0 LTIwIGF0IDEwOjAwICswMjAwLCBIZW5uaW5nIFJvZ2dlIHdyb3RlOg0KPiA+ID4gSGVsbG8sDQo+ ID4gPiANCj4gPiA+IEkgYW0gY3VycmVudGx5IGxvb2tpbmcgZm9yIGEgZ29vZCB3YXkgdG8gaW50 ZWdyYXRlIHRoZSBSTFEgdmFsdWUNCj4gPiA+IG9mDQo+ID4gPiBETEVQIGludG8gYSBjb3N0IGJh c2VkIHJvdXRpbmcgbWV0cmljLCBlLmcuIERBVC4gQnV0IEkgYW0gbm90DQo+ID4gPiBzdXJlDQo+ ID4gPiBob3cNCj4gPiA+IHRvIGRvIHRoaXMuLi4NCj4gPiA+IA0KPiA+ID4gaGFzIGFueW9uZSBo ZXJlIGdvb2QgZXhwZXJpZW5jZSB1c2luZyBSTFEgYW5kIG1heWJlIGFuIGFkdmlzZSBob3cNCj4g PiA+ICJoYXJkIiB5b3Ugc2hvdWxkIHBlbmFsaXplIGEgbGluayB3aXRoIGEgUkxRIGxlc3MgdGhh biAxMDA/DQo+ID4gPiANCj4gPiA+IEhlbm5pbmcgUm9nZ2UNCj4gPiA+IA0KPiA+ID4gX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4gPiA+IG1hbmV0IG1h aWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPiA+ID4gbWFuZXRAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gPiA+IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYu b3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vbWFuZXQ= From nobody Fri Apr 20 12:06:16 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A2C7127599 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:06:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zpgoVLN3SFwo for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io0-x230.google.com (mail-io0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4EA0126D85 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:06:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-x230.google.com with SMTP id r22-v6so2630213ioc.12 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:06:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=nA7fqlh+a3iMeyIJnfZFAc8UQ+O21lK3Bf0w3UPYpGI=; b=L40Bbn0JRCcCpiYdmlJdHCuXCdrjdhpTuoUu4LyVU0aSt9zyuyYewcAlkL5FmodW9R xgOEO4rPjt/z+gpa57ia6KV3b20/qRouBZgPNyrFU2VRV867TZHkLgFK0u/H597d4XDg 5OaHVKXBkk7TgG3LuONmIFqDFhOZVjtAW1WOOXzWxmLQ8qG+rWBwtE/Opa6QmTbcrwVW 8UBt6DkSlaN8PjO5eUB3iMCrshh6waebxuIsG3DKdOUngAD9Afb5jersCYoiIipTI9lG zXsaaeM+K0Vvtw+uroLcyEfuQnrtTUgmjLIVqWo2gkKhRUDCVgtx4A+OO1qNvyUUrRf9 CXUw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nA7fqlh+a3iMeyIJnfZFAc8UQ+O21lK3Bf0w3UPYpGI=; b=GXFET+5xesoKwmxCU10s4rLRFIyMNiaB2i+j37sErTJvJfKSDO+iedTID/NtfXd00a 5vuIUAO2TPHzR366CtuudFQqIB0/3+xpEykTpMh5hP+n9X0un62KuBcous33yjDsX2Jy 0HLYvE2rq+CHiT6/bYCQsSCL2LKVBoV56/V8pqEe5q+qkrQjTU5ItPtGJwEx8DyUNHrn P3JrGnZHihi2EozLiTYE64z8vTKlrYA0fEq4pfGm1MpBInv+TlC7d+YScMlwssmvflL3 2Wzu10ofEEzJWEo0SGxNiGd51j3rzV6UIjPkRW9DD9cqfuUJhETUSzA7mEARBYz15XHl 5nDg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tDiWFjESTzNg0BtGZbQ9NSFUfa8srp+7BftmsVdIzF5IYxVfSb5 JZ981jDU5YMget6onwaEBULbXKH9TKwuWObaw68= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZqeJxpPOKdqLOMuemBxexjWIHDUwjo6vHUEfm9Qv1Eof/pMFRldD1QifdhzM0amMMlPFfNIi8jUjDVlC+bnMlY= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:a867:: with SMTP id r100-v6mr11621046ioe.143.1524251172283; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:06:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a4f:a119:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:06:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1524222140.1526.7.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com> From: Stan Ratliff Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 15:06:11 -0400 Message-ID: To: Henning Rogge Cc: Rick Taylor , "manet@ietf.org" , Teco Boot Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ac4b22056a4c6193" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [manet] (DLEP) Relative Link Quality and routing metrics X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 19:06:15 -0000 --000000000000ac4b22056a4c6193 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Henning, On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:05 AM, Henning Rogge wrote: > Sorry, > > but this does not help... > > lets say I estimate the link cost for a link (based on data-rate) to be > 1000... > > if the radio reports RLQ=100, I would keep the 1000... but how do I > modify it for a RLQ of 80... or 50... or 1? > What we did at Cisco was to add to the route cost, based on how much RLQ had dropped. A document on the route cost calculations (for OSPF) is at https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios/12_4t/ip_mobility/configuration/guide/ip_manet.html Look for Section "OSPF Cost Calculation for VMI Interfaces". You'll see we used a hard-coded '65535' in the calcuations, IIRC, (it's been a few years), that's the maximum OSPF route cost. My guess is that this specific equation won't fit your needs, but it might serve as a template for you. Regards, Stan > If I cannot integrate the value into the cost metric, I have no use > for the value. Unfortunately it is often the ONLY value the radio > reports. > > Henning > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Rick Taylor > wrote: > > I have always suggested that RLQ should be a measure of how hard the > > modem is working to maintain the link, i.e. the higher the RLQ, the > > more stable the link is, and a low RLQ indicates that the link may well > > radically change metrics, or dissapear soon. > > > > One can imagine a sophisticated modem maintiaining a link in very > > adverse conditions, reporting a low RLQ, but otherwise good metrics. > > > > Whether RLQ is a good metric to use as a route cost is a more difficult > > question. I've always been of the opinion that RLQ and Resources make > > a good tie-breakers, but CDR and Latency make better 'primary' metrics. > > > > Hope that helps a little? > > > > Rick > > > > On Fri, 2018-04-20 at 10:00 +0200, Henning Rogge wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> I am currently looking for a good way to integrate the RLQ value of > >> DLEP into a cost based routing metric, e.g. DAT. But I am not sure > >> how > >> to do this... > >> > >> has anyone here good experience using RLQ and maybe an advise how > >> "hard" you should penalize a link with a RLQ less than 100? > >> > >> Henning Rogge > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> manet mailing list > >> manet@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > > _______________________________________________ > manet mailing list > manet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet > --000000000000ac4b22056a4c6193 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Henning,=C2=A0


On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:05 AM, Henning Rogge <hrog= ge@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry,

but this does not help...

lets say I estimate the link cost for a link (based on data-rate) to be 100= 0...

if the radio reports RLQ=3D100, I would keep the 1000... but how do I
modify it for a RLQ of 80... or 50... or 1?

=
What we did at Cisco was to add to the route cost, based on how much R= LQ had dropped. A document on the route cost calculations (for OSPF) is at= =C2=A0https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/= ios/12_4t/ip_mobility/configuration/guide/ip_manet.html
Look = for Section "OSPF Cost Calculation for VMI Interfaces". You'l= l see we used a hard-coded '65535' in the calcuations, IIRC, (it= 9;s been a few years), that's the maximum OSPF route cost.=C2=A0
<= div>
My guess is that this specific equation won't fit yo= ur needs, but it might serve as a template for you.=C2=A0

Regards,
Stan



If I cannot integrate the value into the cost metric, I have no use
for the value. Unfortunately it is often the ONLY value the radio
reports.

Henning

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Rick Taylor
<rick@tropicalstormsof= tware.com> wrote:
> I have always suggested that RLQ should be a measure of how hard the > modem is working to maintain the link, i.e. the higher the RLQ, the > more stable the link is, and a low RLQ indicates that the link may wel= l
> radically change metrics, or dissapear soon.
>
> One can imagine a sophisticated modem maintiaining a link in very
> adverse conditions, reporting a low RLQ, but otherwise good metrics. >
> Whether RLQ is a good metric to use as a route cost is a more difficul= t
> question.=C2=A0 I've always been of the opinion that RLQ and Resou= rces make
> a good tie-breakers, but CDR and Latency make better 'primary'= metrics.
>
> Hope that helps a little?
>
> Rick
>
> On Fri, 2018-04-20 at 10:00 +0200, Henning Rogge wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am currently looking for a good way to integrate the RLQ value o= f
>> DLEP into a cost based routing metric, e.g. DAT. But I am not sure=
>> how
>> to do this...
>>
>> has anyone here good experience using RLQ and maybe an advise how<= br> >> "hard" you should penalize a link with a RLQ less than 1= 00?
>>
>> Henning Rogge
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> manet mailing list
>> manet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet=

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

--000000000000ac4b22056a4c6193-- From nobody Fri Apr 20 12:19:03 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2432212DA3D for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:18:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x5SYpHbQPFEa for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:18:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qk0-x231.google.com (mail-qk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4736B12D94D for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:18:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk0-x231.google.com with SMTP id b39so9766558qkb.5 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:18:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=18o4FMOd+iZoAh1Imm7r3UhywagiQn0u2vYNGDbONGQ=; b=Z0PMlP6wxYZ6yKNQNutvwdV0Sr3YvECzwpwCMcdBamD/66YxU6WneDYGgA28X6OJCg FTCMiyAXdWc+C4WdO3S1lG/e78CGmjqUmk9Ft8NXrwDkSXvK3rhzqYPJ2qLw3890RaoB nlncv1rCQEWZlT/+u20rX6s7x+RI0RJjbE8SgzQgRj/ExBMp8nutRAf2r0RjtNqzAL2z BlVqriNJ80tB15ARcsTSnP7SGQ/c8H20onKZWKROIuOywTiB/Mp8k4yjnUzVwV5boUWC OC9seVVGfGwY/qdcZ2XVVHD7ytAZcd1tebo4SeIjLAS6AOf4qBp26GC67fgKz51nJxHs 1/ug== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=18o4FMOd+iZoAh1Imm7r3UhywagiQn0u2vYNGDbONGQ=; b=jHcKwU/P0gN78lDa5TpbYFgiWdbxYN4c8wf5kKejd6X/edKBYuYp6A6HMiHiYfOnaJ nO+dPg9mSm3U/Ii01VE0jC+qhQzW7ZiyacV4+5xl7S9WKW+Ld16Y/253HdE6tsc6Mrw3 kuyaZwPbCLrkL/aoUhrSCA9L0Rxel6yw/pJL2BTPgz2DUEz+vScDJcoW7WLFMQ1MA5yu v4zaNPII33kWUJR7/Un71GOzEo+jJtn9V52Ktr6VslGQfAHj1kRtUkNLN7FHONIix7tf xoUkz0/cYPcpJuSm5k6f+MtyzoeZGy4faf3LDv9SX6TucXOmMjeKTpk68gfJ8j6Snpmg 7EVA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tDzjghX2vRLeNAlRDeX+yc6Afhumd5Ye8D1z2JyhqcwuItyETFu vw9CaQtophkKSHRmMzxSXULCS7vvurGf7ThrHHM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx49RNwrAStQgGwOUoJhJUlrLAnPp8Pu1bzr682axE0DhlW5y0PiuGcKr7U4aMrQhpJ3i0+cxFLXrZjB5wr8afvc= X-Received: by 10.55.31.2 with SMTP id f2mr11491748qkf.434.1524251935325; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:18:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.237.38.133 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:18:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1524222140.1526.7.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com> From: Henning Rogge Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 21:18:24 +0200 Message-ID: To: Stan Ratliff Cc: Rick Taylor , "manet@ietf.org" , Teco Boot Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [manet] (DLEP) Relative Link Quality and routing metrics X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 19:19:01 -0000 On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:55 PM, Rick Taylor wrote: > I would suggest you return to the radio vendor and request they support > more metrics than RLQ in updates. > > If they are DLEP compliant, then they MUST support MDR,CDR,Latency per > session, and you could modify the session-wide CDR values by the RLQ in > some non-uniform manner. We are working on extending an existing radio with a DLEP adapter... so asking for other metric data is difficult. ;) On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Stan Ratliff wrote: > Henning, > > What we did at Cisco was to add to the route cost, based on how much RLQ had > dropped. A document on the route cost calculations (for OSPF) is at > https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios/12_4t/ip_mobility/configuration/guide/ip_manet.html > Look for Section "OSPF Cost Calculation for VMI Interfaces". You'll see we > used a hard-coded '65535' in the calcuations, IIRC, (it's been a few years), > that's the maximum OSPF route cost. Interesting... yes, this is helpful. It is also funny how complicated some part of the formula got because of integer arithmetic (by multiplying most of the things with 100). Henning From nobody Mon Apr 30 14:05:25 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E3F1126DFB for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 14:05:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hxXBSC7n-6jw for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 14:05:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46FFB126BF6 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 14:05:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/75695) with ESMTP id w3UL5JOA007520; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 23:05:19 +0200 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF276EB226; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 23:05:18 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id ymBdhvIhqikn; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 23:05:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from trurl.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ABFCEEB21E; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 23:05:17 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 23:05:17 +0200 Message-ID: <876048xv5e.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: Henning Rogge Cc: "manet@ietf.org" In-Reply-To: References: <1524222140.1526.7.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Mon, 30 Apr 2018 23:05:19 +0200 (CEST) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5AE7850F.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5AE7850F.001 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5AE7850F.001 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Subject: Re: [manet] (DLEP) Relative Link Quality and routing metrics X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 21:05:24 -0000 >> What we did at Cisco was to add to the route cost, based on how much RLQ had >> dropped. A document on the route cost calculations (for OSPF) is at >> https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios/12_4t/ip_mobility/configuration/guide/ip_manet.html >> Look for Section "OSPF Cost Calculation for VMI Interfaces". You'll see we >> used a hard-coded '65535' in the calcuations, IIRC, (it's been a few years), >> that's the maximum OSPF route cost. > Interesting... yes, this is helpful. It looks somewhat random to me. -- Juliusz