Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

don't force the graph to be called "batadv" #9

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: dev
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

nonchip
Copy link

@nonchip nonchip commented Sep 30, 2015

you shouldn't name arbitrary graph data after a protocol you assume it could have been generated from

@tcatm
Copy link

tcatm commented Sep 30, 2015

The idea was to have multiple layers of graph data (i.e. batadv graph, wifi neighbours graph).

@nonchip
Copy link
Author

nonchip commented Sep 30, 2015

ok, one sec

@nonchip
Copy link
Author

nonchip commented Sep 30, 2015

better?

@tcatm
Copy link

tcatm commented Sep 30, 2015

I don't think routed mesh would be specific enough. batadv implies the tq to be present on links. What would routedmesh imply?

@nonchip
Copy link
Author

nonchip commented Sep 30, 2015

well, there's an LQ in olsrd, which you could use similarly (but having a different value range).

@tcatm
Copy link

tcatm commented Sep 30, 2015

Maybe we should normalize the linkquality somehow and replace tq so it doesn't depend on the protocol anymore.

@nonchip
Copy link
Author

nonchip commented Sep 30, 2015

then i'd actually suggest olsr's range: [0..1] (means "chance that a packet gets delivered", or 1-packetloss from a ping point of view)

@tcatm
Copy link

tcatm commented Sep 30, 2015

That might actually work. So someone needs to convert the existing batadv format first.

@nonchip
Copy link
Author

nonchip commented Sep 30, 2015

shouldn't that just be clamp(0,1-(x/5),1)? according to gui.js you assume TQ to be 1(good) to 5(bad)

(with a hypothetical clamp function defined as:)

function clamp(min,val,max){
  if(val<min) return min;
  if(val>max) return max;
  return val;
}

don't know if JS already defines this, and too lazy to look it up :P

@tcatm
Copy link

tcatm commented Sep 30, 2015

Well, 5 doesn't mean "zero chance for packets to pass through". It just means that the packet would likely need to be sent 5 times on average.

@nonchip
Copy link
Author

nonchip commented Sep 30, 2015

ok, so, having to send a packet ~5 times to get through means there's a 1:5 chance for it to get through, so then it should be even easier: LQ=1/TQ, right?

@tcatm
Copy link

tcatm commented Sep 30, 2015

Yes, that would work.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants