Return-Path: william@bourbon.usc.edu Delivery-Date: Sat Oct 18 14:55:35 2008 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on merlot.usc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.3 Received: from bourbon.usc.edu (bourbon.usc.edu [128.125.9.75]) by merlot.usc.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m9ILtZh7018161 for ; Sat, 18 Oct 2008 14:55:35 -0700 Received: from bourbon.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by bourbon.usc.edu (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m9IM4Llx024869 for ; Sat, 18 Oct 2008 15:04:21 -0700 Message-Id: <200810182204.m9IM4Llx024869@bourbon.usc.edu> To: cs551@merlot.usc.edu Subject: Re: CS 551 Final project #1 Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 15:04:21 -0700 From: Bill Cheng Someone wrote: > I guess I may be a little confused about the red rule in general. In the > slides it says that the red rule is used to route downward. To me this means > that if you are at an LM(i+1) node you need to be able to send the node to > and LM(i) node. In order to verify this you would need to walk LM(i+1) hops > from the each LM(i+1) router and make sure that every LM(i) node was > touched. But when in the lecture it seemed like we were checking the > oposite. We were walking LM(i) hopes from the LM(i+1) router. You meant r(i) hops. A LM(i) router can be seen by a node that's r(i) hops away from it. So, for a LM(i+1) router to see this LM(i) router, the LM(i+1) router needs to be within r(i) hops away from it. -- Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu