[Olsr-dev] Bug in function olsr_tc_update_edge ?

[Hannes Gredler]

sebastian sauer wrote:
>> the first is a correctness issue
> hell, yes :) i would even say it's a bunch of correctness issues, and
> hennig may have a different opinion than i but i disagree that the ETX/LQ
> in the MIT paper suffers from the same correctness issues.
> it's just us.

let me propose the following:

1. remove the "significant" change check at the receiver side
2. mitigate SPF runtime going through the roof
    by adding a 1000ms inter-SPF backoff timer.
3. get CSN into the field
4. move the "siginificant" change check to the sender before
    pesting the world with our TC updates.

/hannes