In message <CAGnRvuqTphM9c=kzjrldtxeuo1doo9qp_kfmjk49ahnbzrx...@mail.gmail.com> Henning Rogge writes: > On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Curtis Villamizar <cur...@ipv6.occnc.com> > wrote: > > 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. > > The Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (RFC 6130) has a similar > mechanism... each node collects local link quality information and > then shares them from time to time with all neighbors, which means > everyone knows about both directions of a link. > > Henning Rogge
RFC 6130 uses probes (hello message success rate). For example: If an AP sends 100 packets a second to a neightbor and 5 drop it would be better to send one LQM packet and know that loss is 5% rather than have to send 100 hello packets in addition to the 100 data packets to reliably know that loss is 5%. (In MPLS it could be a billion packets between LM packets). LQM does not rely on a count of probe packet success. Please reread what I sent earlier or read about PPP LQM or MPLS-TP LM OAM. Please compare RFC 6130 section 14.2 (Basic Principles of Link Quality) with RFC 1989 and RFC 6375. In RFC 6375 look at Section 2.2 (Packet Loss Measurement) and Section 3.1 (Loss Measurement Message Format). RFC 6130 has no comparable mechanism. Curtis _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
