Return-Path: william@bourbon.usc.edu Delivery-Date: Mon Oct 27 07:14:48 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 m9REEmpS020015 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 07:14:48 -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 m9REPfjM000889 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 07:25:41 -0700 Message-Id: <200810271425.m9REPfjM000889@bourbon.usc.edu> To: cs551@merlot.usc.edu Subject: Re: Reg Flooding Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 07:25:41 -0700 From: Bill Cheng Someone wrote: > When 3 nodes are connected to each other, and one node sends a status > request to the other 2 nodes, the 3rd node may forward the join > request to the 1st node before it gets the status request directly > from the 1st node, what should be done in this scenario? I'm not sure what you are asking. Is this a question about JOIN or STATUS? I think I need a multiple choice question here to understand what you are trying to get at. -- Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Bill Cheng wrote: > 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