Hello Bernard,
Thanks for the pointer to RFC 4907. I haven't finished reading it yet,
but the parts about handover and metric consistency already caught my
attention. I definitely think it should be included if there is another
draft to discuss link quality indicators.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 7/18/2016 10:21 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
Those interested in this topic may be interested in RFC 4907:
Architectural Implications of Link Indications:
*_https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4907_*
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Charlie Perkins
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
Hello Zhen,
Thank you for your comments and your support.
A general discussion of link quality indicators would be
complicated. In fact, I have become somewhat more acquainted with
IETF efforts related to such quality indicators over the last few
months, and I think more work is needed at the more general level
which could make beneficial use of wireless links as an important
part of the discussion.
Just to make a list of the various kinds of link quality
indicators deserves a separate document in my opinion. Then, to go
further, and describe the impact of such quality indicators on
various higher level protocol design considerations would be very
valuable, but also much more ambitious than our basic draft.
I would support the creation of another draft for this purpose. I
think the subject deserves another draft, and I think the current
draft could go forward providing a more solid step along the way
towards fulfilling your request.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 6/21/2016 5:35 PM, Zhen Cao wrote:
Hi Authors,
Thank you for the work. I and my team read the draft, and
have the
following comments.
This draft is much needed to be referred by engineers who design
protocols for multi hop ad hoc wireless networks. The
definition of
link asymmetry and its implications are clearly captured in
the draft.
Earlier acquisition of the knowledge within the draft will
help our
engineering practice a lot.
While reading the draft I felt the need for discussion of link
quality
indicators and imo a section on this aspect is warranted in
the draft.
May be the authors have intentionally decided not to project
the link
level indicators since these are seldom exposed to the layer
above it.
But more and more implementations have started (or are
already) using
“feedback scheme” from MAC layer to make decisions at above layer.
Engineers need to careful weigh such options and not
over-commit to
such indicators. I ve seen implementations using LQI only or
RSSI only
to make decisions and getting it wrong. The indicators
“individually”
may not be fit enough to make decisions since they are hugely
impacted
by various factors such as interference (because of density),
distance
etc.
Most probably authors find this out of scope, but I think some
discussion within the draft will be helpful, or we need
another draft
to talk about this aspect in IETF.
Cheers,
Zhen
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
