[Olsr-dev] LinkQualityMult problems in 0.5.6-r5

Mitar (spam-protected)
Sat Sep 5 13:42:24 CEST 2009


On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Henning Rogge<(spam-protected)> wrote:
> The problem is unless it's a complete trivial situation (or one you control
> all nodes with the links you want to command) lqmult is a very blunt tool.

Agreed. Please give is a better tool. Not just remove this blunt tool.

> Hmm... would be interesting to do lqmult in a way that it only works if both
> sides of the link agree to the change. That would allow "link management"
> without all this strange "zero-gain" games.

What are those "zero-gain" games. Maybe we have not yet encountered
those problems so this is why we do not yet know why is
LinkQualityMult problematic.

> The problem is that decissions about a node should be done on a global level.

OK, maybe then we are talking about two different things. I agree that
some things should be configurable on a global level, but some
decisions should be possible also on a node level because if a network
is not administered by one body some autonomy should be possible for
nodes to decide how much they want to participate.

Maybe we could add a global switch for nodes to accept set
"willingness" (I have described in my other e-mail) of nodes. And so
if on a global level nodes agree to that then
users/owners/administrator of nodes can set it per node (and per
interface if a node have multiple interfaces).

> If a node behaves bad or just cannot handle traffic more than a certain
> amount, it should be able to tell this the network. Similar to the (currently
> unused) willingness parameter of OLSR where you can say how good your node
> would be as an MPR.

Maybe we could extend current willingness parameter also to
data/routing? If it is not currently used. As I have described in my
other e-mail. (But it should be possible to configure it also


More information about the Olsr-dev mailing list