Hi Henning, On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Henning Rogge <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ted, I asked a question about a feature that is considered critical in > every > > routing environment that I am familiar with. > > I find it frustrating that looking ahead to significantly more complex > home > > networking topologies and link types, which may be > > many years out still, is unexceptional, but asking about a feature that > > allows better use is described as premature optimization. > > I am asking about a routing requirement. > > > > I still am not clear on how link interference is handled for different > > destinations. > > The options I know are "ignore it" or "include the interference domain > size into the link cost". > Ok - it makes sense to me about including it in the link cost. > Still, using multipath in wireless environments can be tricky... it is > quite easy to mess up even with two paths and get less throughput than > from a single path. > So the concern is getting worse throughput to the same destination - but for different destinations, one just hopes the information in the link cost are sufficient? > There is also the point that multipath choices tend not to be > isometric... just because the two paths from your local point of view > seem to be good they are not necessarily good from the point of view > of the next hop. > In a way that can't be captured by link metrics? I haven't really looked at the unique characteristics for wireless. I'm happy to do a bit of self-education. Thanks, Alia > Henning Rogge >
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
