Return-Path: william@bourbon.usc.edu Delivery-Date: Tue Oct 28 07:22:05 2008 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on merlot.usc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, LOCALPART_IN_SUBJECT autolearn=no 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 m9SEM5p3004376 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2008 07:22:05 -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 m9SEXCPb028586 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2008 07:33:13 -0700 Message-Id: <200810281433.m9SEXCPb028586@bourbon.usc.edu> To: cs551@merlot.usc.edu Subject: Re: cs551 Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 07:33:12 -0700 From: Bill Cheng Someone wrote: > If there is a beacon (A) and a non-beacon(B) which form the network and > another non-beacon (C) comes up which comes to know that its distance from > B(which is a non-beacon) is less than its distance from A and C has > Initneighbors=1. Whom should C have in its init_neighbor_list ? B, of course! Are you thinking that beacon nodes somehow have priority over non-beacon nodes as init neighbors? Let's say that you have a network of 2 beacon nodes and many non-beacon nodes and the non-beacon nodes have InitNeighbors=2. Are you saying that *all* the non-beacon nodes will end up having the 2 beacon nodes in their init_neighbor_list files? -- Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu