[Olsr-dev] Idea for small OLSR improvement

[Henning Rogge]

Am Samstag 24 April 2010 14:55:26 schrieb Markus Kittenberger:
> the point is, just keeping the last route "forever" sounds uhmmm .. not
> desireable for me,..
> 
> as i prefer having no loop, or long route into nowhere, when trying to
> reach a node that is actually down,..
> 
> and if the node is still active, and has any useable links (e.g. lq > 0.3)
> than an bugfree, and wellconfigured olsrd mesh, will not drop route to
> it,..
> 
> (based on about how much the lq values are changing over time on typical
> bad links i know)
> 
> especially your usually 1.0 links would never drop wihtout misoncifguration
> or a bug, so lets find out why they do!!!
If the interface goes down the link will be gone at once. Doesn't matter what 
LQ it has.

The second case which cause a link go down directly from 1.0 would be the 
early versions of the etx-ff metric. If it did not get any new packages 
through a link, it would not update the link metric. So it get's removed 
suddenly by the hello timeout. This behaviour should be gone since october 
2009.

> but anyways it might be useful to allow somewhat a hysteresis on the
> "linktoobad" decision (which ist at 0.1)
>
> e.g. on lower threshold like 0.05 to stop announcing it, and one
> significantly higher one like 0.2 to enable it again.
> this should reduce fluctuations on bad or gone links,..
> (afaik we already had this idea months ago, and maybe it already in !? *G)
I remember that YOU did not like this, because it would prevent links coming 
online without going up to LQ 0.2. ;)

Henning

-- 
1) You can't win.
2) You can't break even.
3) You can't leave the game.
— The Laws of Thermodynamics, summarized
-------------- 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/20100424/c9dc8369/attachment.sig>