Hi,
in a 2-hop setup B can delete the Bundle immediately after delivering it to C, because it knows, that the final destination has been reached. Of course with epidemic, A can not do this when transferring the bundle to B, because it does not know whether B can deliver it, or whether it will C or other nodes later.
However, if your connections are bidirectional, the bundle should be added to the purge vector, and once this is is delivered to A, it should delete the bundle in question. However, I am not exactly sure under which conditions the purge vector is proliferated, if your connections are static. Johannes might say more to that.
In any case there should not be a (unlimited) buildup of Bundles at A, because A should delete them after the TTL expires. If you are continuously injecting bundles in A, it might be that you choose a high lifetime, i.e. if you ttl is one hour, A will always store 1 hour worth of bundles (if the purge vector does not reach A). So depending on your usecase, you might want to inject bundles with a shorter lifetime.
MfG
Sebastian
Am 23.09.2011 um 03:33 schrieb Harsha Chenji:
Hello all,
I currently have a 3 node 2 hop DTN setup: A-B-C with epidemic routing. When a bundle from A is delivered to C, the bundle is not deleted from storage on A, but is deleted at B. This causes a continuous buildup of bundles at A. When I turned on requestReceptionReport(), nothing changed. Is this normal behaviour? Under what conditions will a bundle be deleted from buffer at A when it is delivered to C via multiple hops?
Thanks, Harsha -- !! This message is brought to you via the `ibr-dtn' mailing list. !! Please do not reply to this message to unsubscribe. To unsubscribe or adjust !! your settings, send a mail message to ibr-dtn-request@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de !! or look at https://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/mailman/listinfo/ibr-dtn.