Subject: RE: [Manet-dt] NHDP - solicit?

From: "Dearlove, Christopher \(UK\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:36:40 -0000

I don't think you need to change anything.

- Why would node A want to solicit node B sending
  information? Only if node B's information is
  different to node A's most recent view of node B's
  state (special case: node B has never sent any
  information).

- This must be due to a change in the neighbourhood
  of node B (as neighbourhood information is what
  node B sends in HELLO messages).

- But we already have permission in NHDP for a node
  to send information in response to neighbourhood
  change or other events. This will actually be
  strengthened in the next draft of NHDP, which we
  are finishing up. It's possible to run NHDP based
  entirely on triggered messages, rather than on
  interval based messages (though you may need to
  make one of those triggers than your neighbours'
  information is about to become stale).

- A protocol using NHDP can make this behaviour
  madatory if it wants to.

- Yes, we could add stuff like a "mandatory trigger
  TLV". But this wouldn't achieve anything that the
  curreent mechanism can't handle - there's no need
  for information unless it's changed. Also I can
  think of numerous things that could be added to
  NHDP which someone might want. That's the road to
  ruin of a bloated protocol. The whole point of
  extensibility is if someone needs something they
  can add it, and that would apply here too. Obvious
  example is that OLSRv2 needs  MPRs, but adds them
  itself - and makes a change in MPR Set and
  additional triggering option.

- We also have a flow control mechanism to prevent
  cascades, a HELLO_MIN_INTERVAL.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Chakeres [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 24 February 2007 00:19
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Manet-dt] NHDP - solicit?

               *** WARNING ***

This mail has originated outside your organization,
either from an external partner or the Global Internet. 
     Keep this in mind if you answer this message. 

I've been reading through some of the MANEMO messages and there was
mention that ND is more appropriate for certain things as it has the
ability to solicit messages from nearby nodes. Do you think NHDP
should include semantics for soliciting responses from nearby NHDP
nodes?

Ian

_______________________________________________
Manet-dt mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

_______________________________________________
Manet-dt mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt