On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:18 PM, Teco Boot wrote: > I checked the draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-00. I think the proposal > doesn't meet expectations of users, with regard of protocol convergence. The > default timers are far too conservative. First reconfig on OSPF router in my > hands is adjust timers on high speed interfaces to hello=1 and dead=4. This > is a bit better than what old days bridges with STP do.
This was not considered a requirement in the home. Refer to the section 3.5 in the homenet architecture document. > Minor: the timers are not defaults. These are sample values. I have seen > routers with different defaults than RFC 5340, for certain interface types. I'd expect homenet ethernet and WiFi interfaces to default to the broadcast type. > > For autoconfig OSPF, I prefer removal of the restriction that all routers on > a link MUST use same timers. That provides flexibility like OLSR. If this is > not possible because of reasons for DR selection, I suggest removal of DR > completely and configure all interfaces in P2MP. Or MANET interface type, if > we want to. Question is: which MANET extension. I'm not sure if there is a real requirement. Routers on the link need to agree on the timer values lest we impact more of the protocol than necessary. Hence, if this is required, the way forward would be for routers on shared links to adopt the timers from their neighbor(s). For simplicity, the same rules used for DR preference could be used. Thanks, Acee > > [posted here, because requirements come from Homenet] > > Teco > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
