[Xorp-hackers] OLSR assert

[Ben Greear]

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 <greearb at candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com