[Olsr-dev] LinkQualityMult problems in 0.5.6-r5

Henning Rogge (spam-protected)
Sat Sep 5 14:26:08 CEST 2009

Am Samstag 05 September 2009 14:23:39 schrieb Mitar:
> Hi!
> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Henning Rogge<(spam-protected)> wrote:
> > Some people use lqmult to control what internet gateway they are using.
> > That's a bad sollution for a problem that MUST be solved.
> >
> > If you start to try optimizing routes to certain nodes with lqmult, it
> > get really messy if multiple people start doing this.
> Agreed. I agree that using LinkQualityMult to say "I do not like that
> node" is bad, but using LinkQualityMult to say "please do not use my
> node/interface if it is not really necessary" is something else. And
> currently LinkQualityMult is not good even for this as it sets LQ only
> in one direction and then it is strange to have LQ 1 and ILQ 5 on a
> link which is otherwise lossless. That is why I would like to see
> something more like "willingness" I have described. Which would
> influence end ETX value not all (real) values calculated by different
> metrics.
> > If a node is bad then the NODE should be flagged as bad, either by the
> > node itself or by a collective decission of all neighbors. Just setting
> > lq_mult to 0.5 on a single neighbor does not solve the problem of a bad
> > node.
> Agreed. So this would help also your situation and ours. Just
> currently there is no nice way to flag your own node/interface as
> "bad".
Yes. That's why I like brainstorming about the problems that make lq_mult 
necessary today... there is a hope we can reduce it's usage in the future, 
maybe down to zero.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.olsr.org/pipermail/olsr-dev/attachments/20090905/ba858335/attachment.sig>

More information about the Olsr-dev mailing list