Subject: [Roll] MRHOF ETX

From: Dario Tedeschi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:34:37 -0700

Hi Philip

When MRHOF refers to ETX, is it the ETX value as defined in RFC6551 
(i.e. ETX * 128) or some ETX value defined by implementation?

Could this be made more clear in the spec, because we are currently 
having a discussion in ZigBee-IP as to what this value should be?

Dario

---

From: Omprakash Gnawali <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 18:45:11 -0500

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Dario Tedeschi <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi Philip
>
> When MRHOF refers to ETX, is it the ETX value as defined in RFC6551 (i.e.
> ETX * 128) or some ETX value defined by implementation?
>
> Could this be made more clear in the spec, because we are currently having a
> discussion in ZigBee-IP as to what this value should be?

ETX * 128 as in 6551.

The suggested value for parent switch threshold with ETX is given in
6551 format in -10. But I just noticed that I forgot to convert it to
6551 format for max link and max path values. They should all be ETX *
128.

- om_p