<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
Junxiao,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>See comments below:<br>
<br>
<div>
<div>On Jan 30, 2015, at 10:52 AM, Junxiao Shi <<a href="mailto:shijunxiao@email.arizona.edu">shijunxiao@email.arizona.edu</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Hi Lan
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The access router strategy will not attempt to probe other nexthops, until the "last working nexthop" fails. If two laptops can provide the same contents, after the faster laptop fails, the strategy will stick with the slower laptop, even if the faster
laptop recovers.</div>
<div>In reality, most contents are served from a single laptop which might move. The strategy design didn't consider the scenario where multiple laptops can serve same contents. This design may change in a future version of the strategy.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
OK. For my purpose, recovery is important so I think periodic probing needs to be added. So how about I ask a student to implement a so-called smart flooding strategy based on your access strategy code, but add the probing part (and any other necessary changes)?
This probing can be what Cheng proposed in his "A case for stateful forwarding plane" paper (<a href="http://www.cs.memphis.edu/~lanwang/">http://www.cs.memphis.edu/~lanwang/</a>). We can implement this as a generic probing strategy that different forwarding
strategies can use or customize (similar to your retransmission strategy).</div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>RTO is calculated using the mean-deviation algorithm (same as TCP), but there's no multiplier.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
OK.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Measurements expiration is not specified in the design. This will be fixed in Bug 2452.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>When do you plan to fix this?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
I actually meant what will happen when the RTO for an Interest expires? Looks like you and Alex have some disagreement on this handling (and Alex submitted a gerrit patch?), but I'm not sure what's the final decision and what's the rationale.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The implementation accurately follows access-router-strategy_20141220.pptx design.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
Thanks.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Lan<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yours, Junxiao<br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Lan Wang (lanwang) <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:lanwang@memphis.edu" target="_blank">lanwang@memphis.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">Junxiao,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A question: how does the access strategy revert back to the best path after a link on the best path recovers from a failure?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regarding the design of the access route strategy when RTO expires, two questions:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- what is the formula for RTO calculation?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- how is the expiration handled? I read the issues but it is still unclear to me what's finally implemented. Do the ppt slides at (<a href="http://redmine.named-data.net/issues/1999" target="_blank">http://redmine.named-data.net/issues/1999</a>) reflect
the latest design?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Lan</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</body>
</html>