From: Janet Davis (jlnd_at_cs.washington.edu)
Date: Tue Feb 03 2004 - 13:08:15 PST
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Scott Ramsby wrote:
> I see how we can eliminate the use of the neighbor discovery packets now
> that we have all this other stuff we're broadcasting. However, I'm
> failing to see how we could hit that problem you mentioned. I assumed
> that if we didn't have a route to a node we could just broadcast the
> packet and hope that someone else knows a route. This is more
> inefficient, but is more reliable, and this error case shouldn't happen
> often anyway. So, is the correct thing to do on handling a packet
> forward for which we have no route to broadcast it or just drop it?
Good question. As you can probably guess from my earlier email, I'm just
dropping it.
However, you have a good argument for broadcasting the packet to all
neighbors instead -- it seems like a reasonable solution to me. In the
worst case, the packet could be flooded throughout the entire network, as
in assignment 1. This is reasonable on a small, ad hoc network, even
though it wouldn't be on the Internet.
Cheers,
Janet
-- Janet Davis jlnd_at_cs.washington.edu http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/jlnd/ _______________________________________________ Cse461 mailing list Cse461_at_cs.washington.edu http://mailman.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/cse461
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Tue Feb 03 2004 - 13:08:18 PST