In message <CAGnRvurm5wDMVxdvHy6rdvkPkwQ2q_YHcZiU0+NLmq=zpay...@mail.gmail.com> Henning Rogge writes: > On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 12:52 AM, Curtis Villamizar > <[email protected]> wrote: > > If any of the control packets drop, drop a partial result, repeat > > later, and compare to the last complete result. > > > > Is one cycle per neighbor too much? How about one cycle per neighbor > > each 5 seconds? If "B" is the AP it sends only one packet per cycle > > but both sides get accurate drop rate for both directions. > > I went even further and restricted the probing to a fixed amount per > interface... to prevent the wifi network from overloading in crowded > adhoc networks (where everyone can see everyone). > > Henning Rogge
Henning, That sounds like a good strategy. Negotiating a rate among two parties is not a hard protocol problem, nor is changing it. Note that PPP LQM (link quality monitoring) or MPLS-TP LM (loss monitoring) is not probe data. For example, one cycle of LQM packet every 10 seconds yields the exact number of packets sent and recieved and the exact number dropped in both directions over a 10 second period. One cycle is three packets, with two in one direction. IMHO an LQM for WiFi would be a good idea. It would have to be specified and coded (though coded and then specified seems to be the model that some people prefer). Curtis _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
