Hi Jeffrey, > We developed the solution for a real network situation
It's a bit hard to see value of the proposal without knowing more about possible network scenarios where this solution may be applicable. Situations when cost to each neighbor is different usually mean that L2 paths to them are different. Bunch of separate L2 connections are grouped together and presented to OSPF on L3 as single multiaccess interface - but underneath it is L2 point-to-multipoint network. So saying that Hello packet propagation is more optimal is not true - replication is just moved from OSPF to lower level. Thinking of network solutions which could benefit from assigning different cost to each neighbor I come up with things like VPLS, Metro Ethernet. May be fixed radio networks. But these all are L2 p2mp networks. Multiaccess is just emulated and benefits of using it are ephemeral. Anton On 11/22/2010 05:36 PM, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang wrote: > Hi, > > I presented the draft > http://www.ietf.org/draft-nsheth-ospf-hybrid-bcast-and-p2mp-01.txt in Beijing > (slides http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/slides/ospf-9.ppt) and it was > deferred to the mailing list on whether the problem is worth the working > group effort (some who reviewed the draft agreed that the proposed solution > is reasonable for the problem). > > I'd like to request folks to review the draft/slides and voice your opinion. > We developed the solution for a real network situation and would like to see > that it gets consensus and standardized so that more operators/vendors can > benefit from this. > > Thanks. > Jeffrey > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
