Return-Path: william@bourbon.usc.edu Delivery-Date: Sun Oct 26 22:11:24 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 m9R5BOd5014089 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2008 22:11:24 -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 m9R5MBr6027123 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2008 22:22:11 -0700 Message-Id: <200810270522.m9R5MBr6027123@bourbon.usc.edu> To: cs551@merlot.usc.edu Subject: Re: Reg Flooding Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 22:22:11 -0700 From: Bill Cheng Someone wrote: > It is mentioned that we have to drop the packets with the UOID which has > already been seen once. > > While flooding join requests, which UOID should we consider for dropping the > packets ? The UOID of the original requester.......or the UOID of the > internediate node that did the flooding ? If I understand you correctly, I think you are generating new UOID when you *forward* a message! You should not do that. When you forward a message, the only difference between the out-going message and the one you received is TTL. All copies of the join request message have identical UOID. -- Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu