On 09/30/2009 01:31 PM, Bruce Simpson wrote: > Ben Greear wrote: >> The reset_twohop_mpr_state counts neighbors that are strict and >> reachable. >> But, the consider_poorly_covered method checks for reachability == 1. >> In the log below, neighbor 10.7.7.7 is not counted in poorly_covered. >> Should we maybe check for reachability() > 0 instead of == 1? > > Off the top of my head, for classical OLSR, as specified in the RFC, it > needs to be covered by a minimum of 1 neighbour, in terms of links. > > I don't have the code in front of me, obviously a test of reachability > == 1 would be naive. If the fix is that simple, that's great. > > The "poorly covered" predicate's behaviour changes if ETX metrics (or > other compound metrics) are implemented; it then becomes possible for > the link to be considered too poor to cover the neighbouring node in the > graph, even though the link might exist. > > For the non-ETX case, the code is probably an inlining candidate, but > that's up to the compiler.
The more I look, the weirder it seems..but I may be mis-interpreting things. The code looks quite tricky..and reading the pertinent subsection of the RFC is not helping too much. I'm going to comment out the assert for now so that I can pull some live data out of the router. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear <[email protected]> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com _______________________________________________ Xorp-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers
