Search the Archives

RFC 3561: It seems that there are conflicting claims in the document...

Reader comments:

Comment by Kui Wu
Submitted on 10/7/2003
Related RFC: RFC 3561
Rating: Not yet rated	Rate this comment:
It seems that there are conflicting claims in the document about sequence number update. In Section 6.1 (Maintaining Sequence Numbers), it says: " A destination node increments its own sequence number in two circumstances: - ... - Immediately before a destination node originates a RREP in response to a RREQ, it MUST update its own sequence number to the maximum of its current sequence number and the destination sequence number in the RREQ packet." and in Section 6.6.1 (Route Reply Generation by the Destination), it says"If the generating node is the destination itself, it MUST increment its own sequence number by one if the sequence number in the RREQ packet is equal to that incremented value. Otherwise, the destination does not change its sequence number before generating the RREP message."The first place (Section 6.1) claims that the destination should updateits sequence number to max(seqNo in the RREQ, seqNo in itself) beforegenerating RREP. But the second place (Section 6.6.1) claims the destination node updates its sequence number only when "the seqNo in the RREQ = 1+ the seqno in itself".================In Section 6.1, it says: “A node may change the sequence number in the routing table entry of a destination only if: - ... - it receives an AODV message with new information about the sequence number for a destination node, or...”In Section 6.5, it says:“If a node does not generate a RREP (following the processing rules in section 6.6), and if the incoming IP header has TTL larger than 1 .... for the requested destination. However, the forwarding node MUST NOT modify its maintained value for the destination sequence number, even if the value received in the incoming RREQ is larger than the value currently maintained by the forwarding node.”The above claim in Section 6.5 is likely to cause confusion with the claim in Section 6.1, even if the document uses “may” instead of “must” in Section 6.1.

FAQS.ORG makes no guarantees as to the accuracy of the posts. Each post is the personal opinion of the poster. These posts are not intended to substitute for medical, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. FAQS.ORG does not endorse any opinion or any product or service mentioned mentioned in these posts.

<< Back to: RFC 3561